Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case No.: W.P.(C) 7634/2024
Case Title: Dr. Satendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 28 May 2024
The Delhi High Court has directed authorities to examine concerns raised against restrictive disability eligibility criteria in nursing admissions that allegedly exclude several categories of persons with disabilities recognised under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petition challenged the legality of regulations framed by the Indian Nursing Council that confined reservation benefits primarily to candidates with locomotor disability affecting the lower extremities. The Court, while refraining from adjudicating the legality of the regulations at that stage, directed the competent authority to treat the writ petition as a formal representation and decide the issues raised in accordance with law.
Background
The public interest petition was filed by disability rights advocate Dr. Satendra Singh challenging Clause 8 of the Indian Nursing Council (Revised) Regulations and Curriculum for B.Sc. Nursing Program, 2020.
The impugned provision restricted reservation benefits in nursing admissions to candidates with locomotor disability of 40% to 50% involving the lower extremities. According to the petitioner, the regulation effectively excluded persons with several other benchmark disabilities recognised under the RPwD Act, including muscular dystrophy, dwarfism, acid attack survivors, low vision, hearing impairment, speech and language disabilities, and intellectual disabilities.
The petition argued that such restrictive eligibility standards created systemic barriers at the entry stage itself, preventing persons with disabilities from accessing professional nursing education and, consequently, limiting future employment opportunities in the healthcare sector.
The petitioner also challenged a public notice issued by the National Testing Agency reducing reservation for persons with disabilities from 5% to 3%. It was contended that the reduction violated Section 32 of the RPwD Act as well as the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The respondents submitted that the impugned public notice and eligibility conditions had been issued in accordance with the prevailing policy framework and applicable guidelines.
Observations of the Court
The High Court noted that the petitioner had already submitted multiple representations before the concerned authorities raising objections to the restrictive disability criteria and reduction in reservation.
The Court observed that despite the serious issues raised regarding implementation of the RPwD Act, the competent authority had not taken a decision on those representations.
Without examining the substantive legality of the regulations or reservation policy at that stage, the Court considered it appropriate to direct administrative consideration of the grievances raised by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the writ petition itself be treated as a representation before the concerned authority for appropriate decision-making in accordance with law.
Directions Issued
- The writ petition was directed to be treated as a representation before the competent authority.
- The authority was directed to decide the representation preferably within four weeks.
- The rights and contentions of all parties were kept open.
Commentary
Although the order is procedurally limited, the case raises important questions about exclusionary disability standards in professional education. The petition directly challenges the practice of narrowing statutory reservation benefits through sector-specific eligibility conditions that recognise only selected forms of disability while excluding others expressly protected under the RPwD Act.
The matter is particularly significant because it links educational exclusion with long-term denial of equal opportunity in employment. Restricting access to professional courses such as nursing can effectively shut persons with disabilities out of entire sectors of public and private employment despite the statutory mandate of inclusion.
The petition also exposes an ongoing tension between the rights-based framework of the RPwD Act and professional regulatory regimes that continue to rely on outdated medicalised assumptions regarding disability and functional capability.
While the High Court adopted a cautious approach by directing administrative consideration instead of immediately ruling on the legality of the regulations, the proceedings nevertheless bring judicial attention to the broader issue of structural exclusion in higher and professional education.
The case therefore remains important in the continuing debate over whether professional admission standards in India genuinely reflect the principles of reasonable accommodation, non-discrimination and substantive equality embodied in the RPwD Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment