Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 8074 of 2026
Arising out of: SLP(C) No. 13947 of 2026
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. v. Shubham Agarwal
Decision: 22 May 2026
Summary
The Supreme Court has brought an end to the claim of Civil Services Examination candidate Shubham Agarwal for appointment under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category, after a final attempt to obtain an independent medical assessment of his hearing disability remained incomplete.
The Court's order dated 22 May 2026 reveals facts that significantly explain the final outcome of the litigation.
Agarwal had appeared before a Medical Board constituted at the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, pursuant to an earlier order of the Supreme Court. While a preliminary examination was conducted, he left before the remaining audiological tests could be completed, stating that he needed to take medicines. According to the report placed before the Court, he did not return despite repeated calls, and the Medical Board waited until 5:45 p.m. and thereafter kept the matter open for another 24 hours.
The Supreme Court also recorded that this was not the first occasion on which the respondent had failed to appear for a further medical assessment. The Court noted that, despite repeated directions for a third assessment—which had earlier been upheld by the Supreme Court—Agarwal had repeatedly not appeared before the Medical Boards on one pretext or another.
Taking into account the conflicting medical reports as well as the respondent's conduct at Chennai, the Court held that the matter required to be given a “quietus”. It allowed the appeal, set aside the Delhi High Court's order and discharged the Union Government and UPSC from considering Agarwal for appointment in the Civil Services Examination 2024 under the category of persons with disability.
The development is the latest chapter in a case that Disability Rights India had previously covered when the Delhi High Court was confronted with sharply conflicting medical assessments of Agarwal's hearing disability.
From the Delhi High Court to the Supreme Court
In our earlier report, “Delhi HC Orders Composite Medical Board for PwBD Candidate Amid Conflicting Disability Assessments”, Disability Rights India had examined the Delhi High Court proceedings arising from dramatically different assessments of Agarwal's hearing disability.
The controversy centred on the substantial variation between medical findings.
While an earlier assessment had reportedly found only minimal hearing impairment, the Appellate Disability Medical Board at Army Hospital (Research & Referral), Delhi, assessed Agarwal as having 67.84% permanent hearing disability, bringing him above the 40% threshold required for recognition as a person with benchmark disability in the relevant category.
The discrepancy was so substantial that the Delhi High Court found it necessary to seek an independent resolution rather than itself choose between competing medical opinions.
The High Court accordingly directed a further medical assessment.
Read our earlier coverage: Delhi HC Orders Composite Medical Board for PwBD Candidate Amid Conflicting Disability Assessments.
Supreme Court: Too Many Conflicting Reports for a Final Conclusion
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Court noted at the outset that the central issue was whether Agarwal was, in fact, suffering from permanent hearing impairment of 40% or more.
The Court recorded that numerous medical boards, including an Appellate Board, had assessed him, but the reports and results varied to such an extent that no final opinion could be formed on their basis.
In an effort to finally resolve the dispute, and with the consent of the parties, the Supreme Court had on 24 April 2026 referred the matter to the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai.
The Dean of the Hospital was directed to constitute a Medical Board comprising ENT specialists and audiologists with expertise in hearing disability. The Board was required to determine whether Agarwal suffered from hearing impairment and, if so, the extent of that disability.
This was intended to be the final independent medical assessment capable of resolving the conflicting reports.
What Happened at Chennai?
The events at Chennai proved decisive. Agarwal appeared before the Medical Board on 20 May 2026 and underwent a preliminary examination. He was then asked to undergo further evaluation and tests at the same hospital on the same day.
According to the Medical Board's report, after the first test, he was required to report for the second test. He left on the plea that he needed to take some medicines but did not return.
The Supreme Court records that repeated calls were made to him, but he remained incommunicado and did not respond over the phone. The Medical Board waited until 5:45 p.m. and then decided to wait for a further 24 hours. He still did not return for completion of the examination.
As a result, the Board could not conduct the audiological tests necessary to determine his hearing ability and disability percentage.
The clinical examination that was completed did not reveal any abnormality in the external or middle ear. However, because the audiological tests were not performed, the Board stated that it could not provide a conclusive opinion regarding his hearing ability or the percentage of disability, if any.
Not the First Missed Medical Assessment
The Supreme Court's order contains another significant observation. The Court recorded that there had earlier been repeated directions requiring Agarwal to appear before a Medical Board for a third assessment. Those directions had been upheld by the Supreme Court itself in October 2025.
According to the Court, Agarwal had repeatedly failed to appear before those Boards on “some pretext or the other”.
This history appears to have weighed heavily with the Court when, after the incomplete Chennai examination, counsel for Agarwal sought one last opportunity to undergo the remaining tests.
The request was declined.
The Supreme Court noted that it had considered the matter in its entirety, including the various medical reports and Agarwal's conduct at Chennai. It concluded that the Civil Services Examination 2024 dispute now required to be brought to an end.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi High Court Order
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and UPSC.
The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order dated 24 November 2025 and held that the appellants were discharged from the requirement of considering Agarwal's case for appointment in the Civil Services Examination 2024 under the PwD category.
Thus, the Supreme Court did not ultimately resolve the conflicting medical assessments by determining whether Agarwal had a 40% or greater hearing disability.
Instead, the final independent examination intended to settle that question remained incomplete, and the Court declined to grant another opportunity in light of the overall circumstances and the respondent's conduct.
What the Supreme Court Did Not Decide
The order must nevertheless be read carefully.
The Supreme Court did not expressly hold that:
- Agarwal had submitted a forged disability certificate;
- the 67.84% hearing disability assessment was fraudulent;
- he had committed fraud;
- he had no disability whatsoever;
- his existing appointment as Nayab Tehsildar in Uttar Pradesh was invalid; or
- his services in Uttar Pradesh should be terminated.
The issue before the Supreme Court was confined to whether Agarwal could be considered for appointment under the PwBD category in the Civil Services Examination 2024.
The Court's decision ends that claim. It does not, by itself, invalidate an appointment obtained through a separate recruitment process.
Fresh Questions Over Earlier UPPSC Appointment
The case has now reportedly taken another turn with a complaint being submitted to the Uttar Pradesh Government seeking scrutiny of Agarwal's earlier appointment as a Nayab Tehsildar through the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC).
The complaint reportedly seeks verification of the disability records and other documents relied upon during that recruitment process.
Any inquiry into that appointment, if initiated, would have to examine the matter independently.
The relevant questions would include:
- What disability certificate or certificates were submitted at the time of recruitment?
- Under which disability category was reservation claimed?
- What was the assessed percentage and nature of disability at the relevant time?
- Which recruitment rules governed the selection?
- What verification was undertaken by the appointing authority?
The Supreme Court's order may provide important factual context, particularly regarding the repeated attempts to obtain a conclusive medical assessment and the respondent's failure to complete the Chennai examination. However, it does not automatically amount to a judicial finding that the earlier UPPSC appointment was illegal.
That would require examination by the competent authority under the applicable law and rules.
The Larger Concern: When Disability Assessments Produce Radically Different Results
The case also highlights a larger problem within India's disability certification framework.
The Supreme Court itself noted that numerous medical boards had examined the candidate and that their findings varied to such an extent that no final opinion could be formed on their basis.
Such discrepancies can have serious consequences.
For a person with a disability, they can mean repeated examinations, prolonged uncertainty and denial or delay of statutory entitlements.
For recruiting authorities, they create uncertainty about which medical assessment should be accepted.
For other eligible candidates with disabilities, any failure to maintain a credible and consistent certification process can undermine confidence in reservation benefits intended to address historical exclusion.
At the same time, this case demonstrates the importance of cooperation with legally constituted medical assessment mechanisms when a disability claim is under challenge.
Where multiple medical reports are inconsistent, an independent and conclusive assessment is often the only reliable way to resolve the dispute.
But that process can succeed only if the candidate completes the assessment.
A Case That Raises Questions Beyond One Candidate
The Shubham Agarwal case has now travelled through multiple medical boards, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Delhi High Court had sought to address the extraordinary discrepancy between competing medical assessments through a further independent medical mechanism.
The Supreme Court also attempted to obtain a final, expert assessment through a specialised Medical Board in Chennai.
That process, however, remained incomplete.
The Court ultimately took into account both the history of conflicting medical reports and the respondent's conduct during the Chennai assessment and brought the UPSC dispute to an end.
The subsequent complaint concerning Agarwal's earlier UPPSC appointment may now open a separate chapter.
Whether the Uttar Pradesh Government decides to investigate the matter, and what any such inquiry may establish, remains to be seen.
For now, the Supreme Court's order offers an important lesson for the disability certification and recruitment system: where conflicting medical assessments arise, a credible and final resolution requires not only an independent expert mechanism but also full cooperation with that process.
Related DRI Coverage
Delhi HC Orders Composite Medical Board for PwBD Candidate Amid Conflicting Disability Assessments
This earlier DRI report covered the Delhi High Court stage of the litigation and the conflicting medical assessments that eventually led to the Supreme Court proceedings.
Read the Supreme Court Order dated 22 May 2026
Disability Rights India will continue to follow any further developments regarding the complaint before the Uttar Pradesh Government and any official decision concerning the earlier UPPSC appointment.