Blindness Cannot Eclipse Determination | Rajasthan HC Tells AIIMS To Devise Special Methods For MBBS Student Who Lost 100% Vision — “No Person Forfeits Their Claim To Education On Account Of Disability”
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the constitution of a specialized Commission/Committee of Experts at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi to examine a visually impaired MBBS candidate and recommend modalities and methodologies to enable completion of the remaining course and examinations. The Court further directed the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi and the Commissioner, Persons with Disabilities Institute for the Physically Handicapped, Delhi to carry out the necessary exercise within a set timeframe and to suggest measures facilitating study and assessment.
The Bench recorded that, in the event of a favourable report by the Expert Committee, the authorities shall permit continuation of studies and appearance in all theory, clinical, and practical examinations with necessary assistance in accordance with the applicable University Ordinance. The order also clarified that the directions were issued having regard to the peculiar and exceptional facts and that the order would not be treated as a precedent for candidates with more than 40% blindness seeking admission to the MBBS course, whose cases would continue to be governed by the relevant regulations as amended from time to time.
The matter concerned a candidate who qualified for the MBBS course through a national entrance examination and completed two years of medical studies before suffering a road accident on 07.04.2017 resulting in 100% loss of vision. The candidate sought permission to complete the remaining portion of the MBBS course. The Court noted that the precise issue was whether, in such circumstances, the candidate could be permitted to complete the remaining portion of the MBBS studies.
A writ petition was filed seeking directions to quash a decision not permitting continuation in the MBBS course; to direct effective steps and assistance under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; to allow appearance in examinations with other students or, if not feasible, to direct special examinations; and to set aside any adverse orders passed during the pendency of the writ petition. The reliefs included a request that the authorities place the entire record before the Court and for directions enabling continuation of studies with necessary accommodations.
The petitioner’s factual background recorded that admission to the MBBS course occurred in August 2014. The petitioner successfully completed the first and second years by 2017, having finished five semesters up to 07.04.2017. While pursuing the third year, the petitioner met with the said accident, sustaining serious head injuries, including temporal contusion and skull fracture, which culminated in complete loss of vision. The petitioner's application was made to the Principal of the concerned Medical College seeking permission to continue studies for the remaining years. The application was forwarded to the then Medical Council of India (now National Medical Commission) on 27.08.2019 for appropriate directions. Several communications followed.
A Medical Board was constituted and, on 12.06.2020, gave an opinion that, considering the condition, the petitioner “may be allowed to pursue the course of MBBS through its completion,” while indicating that any decision for postgraduate study or clinical practice was beyond the Board’s purview. Subsequently, a second Medical Board was constituted to opine on modalities and methodology for teaching visually challenged candidates. This Board recorded that while theory classes using visual aids had been allowed, there were no modalities for practical teaching and patient examination for a visually challenged candidate, and opined that if the MBBS course were completed, the candidate would be unable to conduct duties as a doctor.
By letter dated 29.01.2021, the University informed that in its meeting on 21.01.2021 it had decided not to permit continuation of studies on the ground of complete blindness. The petitioner approached the Court. By interim order dated 17.03.2021, considering provisions of the University Ordinance, the Court directed the respondents to allow appearance in the MBBS Part (I) Examination scheduled to commence from 23.03.2021 and to provide all necessary assistance such as services of an amanuensis in accordance with the Ordinance. The petitioner appeared in the theory papers of the Third Professional MBBS Examination and secured scores recorded in the order; the petitioner fell short by one mark in one subject and did not appear in the practical examinations, resulting in a ‘fail’ due to absence from practical assessment.
The National Medical Commission and the University opposed the petition with reference to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, including the notification dated 04.11.2019, asserting that a person with more than 40% blindness is not eligible for admission to the MBBS course and that the curriculum from the third to the ninth semesters requires both theory and clinical subjects including surgeries and patient examination, which they argued could not be fulfilled by a person with 100% visual impairment.
The petition also recorded that the petitioner submitted an undertaking, in the form of an affidavit, that the petitioner would not practice as a medical practitioner if permitted to complete the MBBS course and awarded the degree, and that the petitioner undertook to pursue the remainder of the course with the assistance of a scribe as permissible under law.
The judgment recorded statutory provisions relevant to the rights of persons with disabilities, including definitions and obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, such as Sections 2(r), 2(s), 2(y), 33, 34, and the duties of educational institutions under Sections 16–18, along with Section 32 concerning reservation of seats for persons with benchmark disabilities in higher education. The Court outlined the regulatory framework under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, including Sections 32 and 33, and noted notifications regulating medical education and reservation in line with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The petitioner relied upon decided cases, including decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts addressing admission and accommodation for candidates with benchmark disabilities in medical courses. The respondents contended that courts should refrain from granting relaxations contrary to expert opinions and pointed to the Medical Board’s view that the petitioner would not be able to discharge duties as a doctor after completing the course. The respondents also referred to the post-2019 regulatory position on eligibility with reference to visual disability.
The judgment further recorded comparative and illustrative instances concerning candidates and practitioners with disabilities in the medical profession, alongside the role of national and international legal frameworks. The Court discussed the factual chronology, the interim orders, the examination participation and results, and the procedural steps leading up to the final directions. The Court identified that a person does not acquire disability by choice and described the accident as an example of Vis Major or Act of God, explaining the context of how the disability arose during the course of study after completion of the first and second years.
The Court recorded the petitioner’s completion of two years of MBBS studies and the subsequent accident resulting in complete loss of vision. In the context of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and educational obligations, the Court set out principles and statutory provisions. In doing so, the Court used clear statements and quotations. The order included the following observation framing the legal and social context: “More than sight, what truly empowers an individual to succeed in life is a vision or a dream and this vision is not limited alone to those with the sense of sight. With a determined vision, relentless hard work and the courage to take the plunge, individuals with visual impairment can conquer their challenges and thrive in their chosen fields.”
The order recounted the first Medical Board’s opinion dated 12.06.2020: “There is irreversible loss of vision, seeing the condition she may be allowed to pursue the course of MBBS through its completion. Further decision for post graduation or clinical practice is beyond the purview of the present Board.”
The second Medical Board’s note, dated 06.10.2020, was extracted as follows: “However, regarding mode of practical teaching and patient examination presently there are no modialities for teaching a visually challenged candidate. If MBBS course is completed, the board feels that the candidate shall be unable to conduct the duties as a doctor.”
In addressing the statutory framework of the RPwD Act, the Court set out the preambular principles and quoted the text stating that the Act is a framework through which persons with disabilities translate rights into remedies. The order explained: “The RPwD Act is a watershed legislation for disability rights in India. It honours India’s commitment at the international level under the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disability.” It recorded the textual definitions relevant to reasonable accommodation, persons with disability, and persons with benchmark disability, and extracted duties of educational institutions and specific measures to promote inclusive education.
The Court recounted the statutory reservation requirements: “All government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five percent seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.” The order described the regulatory powers under the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, and noted that regulations have statutory force.
The order included quotations from decided cases presented in support of the petitioner’s position. In one decision, the Court recorded: “The Medical Education Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, 1956 have statutory force and are binding on the MCI… The petitioner cannot be denied admission to the MBBS course if he qualifies as per his merit in the category of Persons with Disability.” Another quotation stated: “statutory provisions have to prevail over the recommendations made by the Committee as the recommendations made have not taken statutory shape so far.”
The judgment also recorded observations concerning the approach of Disability Assessment Boards, quoting that courts cannot be rendered inactive due to lack of framework when fundamental rights are engaged, and that the focus must be on ability and reasonable accommodation. The order quoted: “No person forfeits their claim to education or other pursuits of life on account of their disability.” It further stated: “The Disability Assessment Boards must focus on the functional competence of persons with disabilities and not merely quantify the disability.”
The Court discussed the broader considerations in healthcare and inclusion, quoting: “The inclusion of persons with disabilities within medical practice is vital to ensure that the approach of the medical community and of hospitals and other healthcare institutes is humane, sensitive and informed by lived experiences.” It also recorded: “Reasonable accommodation is a gateway right to avail all other fundamental, human and legal rights for persons with disabilities. Non-availability of reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination and violates substantive equality of persons with disabilities.”
The Court noted instances where candidates with disabilities had been permitted to continue or were granted admissions and directions by competent courts, and the order recorded references to practitioners who had completed medical education despite visual impairments.
The Court situated the present case within a framework that required an expert-driven process to devise modalities and methodologies suitable for the petitioner’s remaining course and assessments. The order recorded: “Instant case is a peculiar example and illustration of the term Vis Major, i.e., Act of God…” It framed the approach as one requiring institutional assistance to develop methods of teaching and examining appropriate to the petitioner’s condition. The order recorded that accommodating measures under the University Ordinance, including provision of a scribe and assistance, were to be available as required.
The Court issued specific directions. It directed that the respondents “constitute a Commission/Committee of Experts at AIIMS, New Delhi with the assistance of Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, Persons with Disabilities Institute for the Physically Handicapped, Delhi and Eyes Experts to examine the petitioner and recommend appropriate modalities and methodologies to enable her to pursue the remaining portion of her MBBS Course and to undertake all examinations including theory, clinical and practical papers.”
The Court further directed that “The Director, AIIMS, New Delhi and Commissioner, Persons with Disabilities Institute for the Physically Handicapped, Delhi are directed to carry out the necessary exercise in compliance with the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and they shall suggest appropriate modalities and methodologies to enable the petitioner to pursue her MBBS studies and appear for her examinations.”
The order recorded a conditional directive following the expert committee’s assessment: “In case, the report of the Expert Committee at AIIMS, New Delhi comes in favour of the petitioner, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to pursue her MBBS studies and appear in all the practical, theory and clinical examinations, in accordance with the modalities and methodologies recommended by the Committee, The respondents shall also provide the petitioner all necessary assistance, including providing the services of a scribe, etc. as and when required, as per the Ordinance 169M of the University Ordinance.”
The order specified the scope and precedential value of its directions: “However, it is made clear that the above directions issued in this case are based on the peculiar and exceptional circumstances where the petitioner, at the time of admission to the MBBS Course, had no visual impairment and possessed normal vision, but subsequently lost her sight completely due to an unfortunate road accident in the mid of the third year of her MBBS Course. This order shall not be treated as a precedent for the candidates/students with more than 40% blindness, who seek to qualify the NEET examination for admission to the MBBS Course. Such cases shall continue to be governed strictly by the relevant Regulations on Graduate Medical Examination, 1997 and 1999 as amended from time to time.”
The order directed communication for compliance: “Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi and Commissioner, Persons with Disabilities Institute for the Physically Handicapped, Delhi for necessary compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma with Mr. Avi Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Angad Mirdha; Mr. S.K. Panwar; Mr. Gaurav Kumawat
Case Title: Ankita Singodia v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:30310
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1986/2021
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
