Supreme Court : Reasonable Accommodation Upheld As Fundamental Right | AIIMS Directed To Admit Candiate With Disability Without NEET Reappearance
Kiran Raj
In a significant judgement on disability rights in medical education, the Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, set aside the denial of admission to a Scheduled Caste candidate with benchmark disability, directing his admission to the MBBS UG course at AIIMS, New Delhi, for the 2025-2026 academic session. The Court stated that denying relief to the appellant despite high merit and demonstrated ability amounted to "institutional bias and systemic discrimination," and observed that "reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of our Constitution."
The appellant, Kabir Paharia, is a person with benchmark disability (PwBD) belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. Despite qualifying the NEET UG 2024 examination with high marks, securing 542 marks and an SC-PwBD category rank of 176, he was denied admission to the MBBS course. The denial followed the issuance of a disability certificate from the Vardhman Mahavir Medical College-Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, which concluded the appellant as ineligible under the NMC/MCI norms.
The appellant filed Writ Petition (C) No. 12165 of 2024 before the High Court of Delhi. The Single Judge directed AIIMS, New Delhi, to reassess the appellant through a board of three experts. The board reaffirmed the prior assessment and declared him ineligible. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 967 of 2024 was then dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court following another reassessment by a newly constituted three-member board at AIIMS.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29275 of 2024. He was represented by Advocate Rahul Bajaj, who argued that the assessments overlooked the statutory entitlement to reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Counsel cited previous Supreme Court judgements, including Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Sciences, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4283, and Anmol v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387.
In both cases cited, the Court had upheld the right of PwBD candidates to medical education, recognising the utility of assistive technologies and adaptations. In Om Rathod, the candidate was assessed by Dr. Satendra Singh, who answered in the negative to four critical questions related to accommodation affecting safety, essential requirements, and institutional hardship.
The appellant's counsel also drew comparisons with the factual matrix of these cases, arguing that the appellant had less severe disability and higher NEET scores than the candidates in those precedents. He prayed for a similar evaluation by Dr. Satendra Singh or alternatively, a declaration qualifying the appellant for admission in the next academic year.
On the opposing side, the Union of India and the National Medical Commission submitted that they were in the process of revising the relevant disability guidelines in compliance with the above Supreme Court decisions. However, they sought deferment of relief until after the new framework was formalised.
The Supreme Court rejected the respondents’ request to defer the matter. It stated: "Denying relief to the petitioner on this premise would be totally unjustified in view of the ratio of this Court’s judgments in Om Rathod... and Anmol." The Court recorded that "he has performed exceedingly well in the NEET (UG) 2024 examination and stood high in the merit in his category."
By its order dated 2nd April 2025, the Court directed the constitution of a new five-member Medical Board at AIIMS, New Delhi, including a locomotor disability specialist and a neuro-physician, to reassess the appellant’s eligibility with due deference to the previous judgments.
The subsequent Board, chaired by Dr. S.L. Yadav, assessed the appellant on 16th and 22nd April 2025. The Board noted congenital absence of multiple fingers and partial toe loss, but also confirmed normal strength, coordination, and adaptability using existing digits. The Board stated that "he executed satisfactorily... chest compressions, intravenous cannulation, assembly of a laryngoscope, intubation, and suturing." The only difficulty noted was in wearing standard sterilised gloves.
Upon perusal of this report, the Court observed: "This trivial aberration, by no stretch of imagination, can be a ground to deny admission to the appellant... when he is otherwise qualified and scored exceedingly high rank."
The Bench further noted that a candidate with a lower SC-PwBD rank (159816 vs appellant’s 147946 AIR) was already granted admission at AIIMS, New Delhi, establishing a clear case of arbitrary exclusion. The Court unequivocally stated: "The denial of admission... was grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16... Such action not only reflects institutional bias and systemic discrimination but also undermines the principles of equal opportunity."
The Court underscored that "the constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that PwD and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities." It recorded: "When administrative authorities create arbitrary barriers... they not only violate statutory provisions but also perpetuate the historical injustice and stigmatisation."
In a strong affirmation of the rights-based approach, the Court noted: "We emphasize that reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of our Constitution."
The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 12th November 2024. It directed that:
- "The appellant shall be allocated a seat in the MBBS UG course 2025 against the Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, in the forthcoming academic session."
- "The appellant shall not be required to undergo the NEET-UG 2025 examination."
- "The National Medical Commission shall forthwith and not later than within a period of two months... and at any cost before the counselling for the 2025-2026 session commence, complete the process of revising the guidelines... in light of judgments... in Om Rathod... and Anmol."
- "It must be ensured that systemic discrimination against persons with benchmark disabilities... is eliminated and that the admission process upholds their right to equal opportunity and dignity."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For The Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR, Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Advocate, Mr. Taha Bin Tasneem, Advocate, Mr. Amar Jain, Advocate, Mr. M Shaz Khan, Advocate
For The Respondents: Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Advocate, Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR, Mr. Praneet Pranav, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya Dixit, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Manubarwala, Advocate, Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR, Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Advocate, Mr. Paranjay Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Raj, Advocate
Case Title: Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 623
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 29275 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
[Read/Download order]
