Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order that upheld the rejection of an MBBS seat to a candidate with a locomotor disability. The court ruled that the Disability Assessment Board’s decision was based on the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines without a functional assessment of the candidate. The court accepted the report of Dr. Satendra Singh, a member of the AIIMS Medical Board, which stated that the appellant could pursue the MBBS course with reasonable accommodations and assistive technologies. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant’s admission to the Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan, was confirmed.

The appellant, Anmol, appeared for the NEET-UG 2024 examination conducted by the National Testing Agency on May 5, 2024. He obtained rank 2462 in the Persons with Disability (PwD) category. The appellant had a locomotor disability of 50% with Clubfoot in the right lower limb and Phocomelia, as well as a speech and language disability of 20%. The final disability was computed at 58%. The appellant sought admission to a medical college under the PwD (OBC) category.

The appellant approached the Government Medical College, Chandigarh, for disability assessment. The Disability Certification Board issued a certificate on September 2, 2024, rendering him ineligible for admission. The appellant challenged the disability certificate before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 24293 of 2024, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the certificate and requesting a fresh assessment.

The High Court dismissed the petition on September 23, 2024, holding that the court could not substitute the expert medical opinion of the Disability Assessment Board. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.

On November 25, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the Director of AIIMS, New Delhi, to constitute a committee to assess whether the appellant’s disability would affect his ability to pursue medical education. The court also directed that Professor Dr. Satendra Singh be co-opted as a member of the committee. The appellant was directed to appear before the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi, on November 27, 2024.

The report of the AIIMS Medical Board, submitted on November 28, 2024, was in two parts. The majority opinion of five members of the Board concluded:

"This Medical Board, after detailed clinical, radiological, speech and functional assessment of the candidate in the Skills Lab, SET Facility of AIIMS, and as per the NMC Guidelines for candidates with disability, opines that the candidate has locomotor and speech-related disabilities and belongs to the category of persons with multiple disabilities. The candidate could perform a few basic, essential, and simple tasks tested slowly and with difficulty after having been explained and demonstrated these."

The Board further stated:

"The candidate has benchmark disability (Forty percent or more) as per the current Guidelines for this subject and notified by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities in a Gazette of India in March 2024. His disability is permanent in nature, not likely to worsen or improve. He is not suitable to pursue an undergraduate medical education program (MBBS) which is a competency-based program of 5 and a half years, including one year of compulsory rotatory Internship. The current NMC Guidelines perhaps need revision, and with respect to the current Guidelines, this Medical Board is not able to declare the candidate FIT to join MBBS course."

Dr. Satendra Singh, in his separate report, conducted a functional assessment and concluded:

"In my opinion, Anmol can successfully navigate the MBBS course with clinical accommodations, and later internship with assistive technologies, and thereafter practice as a doctor. It is up to him, after completing MBBS, to decide whether he wishes to specialize in a non-surgical or medical branch or continue as a general duty medical officer. At this stage, we should not assume his incompetence without first providing him ample opportunities in a simulation lab and ensuring the availability of accommodations and assistive products."

The Supreme Court referred to its previous decisions in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860, and Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130. The court noted:

"It is the mechanical and literal interpretation of the guidelines that has rendered the appellant ineligible. The five members of the board themselves admitted that the current NMC Guidelines needed revision."

The court further stated: "The Disability Assessment Boards should positively record whether the disability of the candidate will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question."

The court observed that the requirement of “both hands intact” had been addressed in previous rulings. It stated: "A prescription such as ‘both hands intact’ reeks of ableism and has no place in a statutory regulation. Accepting the report of five members and denying the admission of the appellant would be upholding the theory of ableism which we are not prepared to do."

The court noted the reasoning given in Om Rathod, which examined functional competency rather than imposing uniform disability thresholds. It also relied on Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, (2021) 5 SCC 370, which had interpreted the concept of reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act.

The court concluded: "The second respondent shall issue fresh guidelines for admitting persons with disabilities into medical courses."

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and confirmed the appellant’s admission to the Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan. The court directed the NMC to revise its guidelines, stating that: "The second respondent shall issue fresh guidelines for admitting persons with disabilities into medical courses."

The court further directed the NMC to file an affidavit explaining the status of the revised guidelines before March 3, 2025.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant’s admission was confirmed. The Supreme Court listed the matter for further monitoring on March 3, 2025.

Case Title: Anmol vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 14333 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27632 of 2024)
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

[Read/Download order]