Supreme Court - Benchmark disability no ground to render a candidate ineligible to pursue MBBS

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench:  Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Viswanathan 
Case Title: Omkar Ramchandra Gond Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Case No.:  Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 2024
Date of Judgement: 15 October 2024
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 775

Cases Referred:

• Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 383
• Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. vs. Union of India and Others, (2023) 2 SCC 209
• Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.,
• Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 761
• Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency, (NTA) and others (2023) 2 SCC 286

Synopsis: 

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the eligibility of a candidate with a benchmark disability for admission to the MBBS program under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) reservation. The case revolved around the appellant, who qualified NEET (UG) 2024 and sought admission under the PwD and OBC categories. The Disability Certification Centre initially deemed the appellant ineligible, citing that his speech and language disability (44-45%) would hinder his ability to pursue the course under National Medical Commission (NMC) norms.

When the Bombay High Court declined interim relief, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The apex court issued an interim order directing that the appellant’s seat be reserved and constituted a specialized Medical Board to evaluate whether the appellant’s disability genuinely impeded his ability to pursue medical education. Following a favorable report, the Court upheld the appellant's admission.

Key directives of the judgment included:

1. Disability as a Criterion: Quantified disability alone cannot disqualify a candidate. Eligibility depends on the Disability Assessment Board's opinion on whether the disability prevents course completion.
2. Reasoned Decisions: Boards must explicitly state if and why a disability would impede the candidate’s ability to pursue the course.
3. Judicial Review: Negative opinions by Disability Boards can be challenged in courts, which may refer the case to premier medical institutes for independent review.
4. Policy Reforms: Pending reforms by the NMC, the Boards must consider guidelines from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

This landmark decision emphasizes a nuanced, case-by-case assessment of disabilities in educational settings, reinforcing the principles of inclusion and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.

Read the Judgement 

Supreme Court on Reservation of NEET seats - "when the experts in the field have opined against the petitioners, the Court would not be justified in sitting over as an appellate authority against the opinion formed by the experts.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Justice M.R. Shah and Hon'ble Justice B.R. Gavai

Case No: WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 885/2019

Case Title: Vidhi Himmat Katariya and others Vs  The State of Gujarat and others

Date of Judgement: October 04, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1137; SCC Online SC 1318

Brief:

The Petitioners were students appearing for the NEET Exam for admission to MBBS Courses across the country. They sought to be considered persons with disabilities eligible to claim reservation under the PwD Category. The regulations of Graduate Medical Education in MCI were amended in 2019 and whereby Appendix ‘H’ came to be added to the erstwhile Regulations, 2017 – providing for minimum degree of disability to be 40% (Benchmark Disability) in order to be eligible for availing reservation for persons with specified disability. Appendix ‘H’ further provided that in case of ‘physical disability or locomotor disability’, the applicant may be assessed for “Both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion” as essential to be considered eligible for medical course”.

Therefore, the medical board denied admission to Petitioners under persons with disabilities category by stating that they are not eligible for reservation under this category under the amended Regulations.

Petitoners claimed that the relevant provisions of Regulations, 2019 – “Both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion are essential to be considered” has been applied by the State Government to non­suit the petitioners for medical course in an arbitrary manner and without application of mind. 

Petitioners appealed to the Appellate Medical Board, which upheld the previous decision. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 for relief. The Court ruled in favour of the state and declined to grant admission to the petitioners by stating as below:

"Now so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioners that while denying admission to the petitioners the State Government and/or authorities have not considered the relevant parameters and have not considered that the respective petitioners are able to perform well is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the present case all the expert bodies including the Medical Board, Medical Appellate Board and even the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi consisting of the experts have opined against the petitioners and their cases are considered in light of the relevant essential eligibility criteria as mentioned in Appendix ‘H’ – ‘Both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion’. Therefore, when the experts in the field have opined against the petitioners, the Court would not be justified in sitting over as an appellate authority against the opinion formed by the experts – in the present case, the Medical Board, Medical Appellate Board and the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi, more particularly when there are no allegations of mala fides."

Judgement: