UK Supreme Court rules in favour of Wheelchair than Buggy in public buses

Dear Colleagues,

You would remember this unique case of a wheelchair user Mr. Doug Paulley who approached the court after he was told he could not get on a bus to Leeds in 2012 when a mother with a pushchair refused to move. Mr. Paulley had argued that operator FirstGroup's "requesting, not requiring" policy was discriminatory. 

Brief of the Case

The appeal concerns the lawfulness of a bus company’s policy in relation to the use of the space provided for wheelchair users on its buses. Mr Paulley is a wheelchair user who attempted to board a bus operated by a subsidiary of FirstGroup PLC on 24th February 2012. 

The bus had a space marked by a wheelchair sign and a notice saying, “Please give up this space for a wheelchair user” (“the Notice”). At the time Mr Paulley attempted to board, a woman with a sleeping child in a pushchair occupied this space. She was asked by the driver to fold down the chair and move; however, she refused, stating that it did not fold down. Mr Paulley had to wait for the next bus as a result. 

Mr Paulley issued proceedings against FirstGroup for unlawful discrimination on the ground of his disability, claiming that FirstGroup had failed to make “reasonable adjustments” to its policies contrary to section 29(2) of the Equality Act 2010. The Recorder found that FirstGroup operated a “provision criterion or practice” (“PCP”) consisting of a “policy… of ‘first come first served’… whereby a non-wheelchair user occupying the space on the bus would be requested to move, but if the request was refused nothing more would be done.” This placed Mr Paulley and other wheelchair users at a substantial disadvantage by comparison with non-disabled passengers. 

There were reasonable adjustments that FirstGroup could have made to eliminate the disadvantage: 

(i) altering the Notice positively to require non-disabled passengers occupying a space to move if a wheelchair user needed it; and 

(ii) adopting an enforcement policy requiring non-disabled passengers to leave the bus if they failed to comply. 

The Recorder found in favour of Mr Paulley and awarded him £5,500 damages. However, FirstGroup went in appeal before the  Court of Appeal which unanimously allowed the appeal and held that it was not reasonable to hold that FirstGroup should adjust its policy so that its drivers required, rather than requested, non-wheelchair users to vacate a space when it was needed by a person in a wheelchair, and then to positively enforce that requirement with the ultimate sanction being removal from the bus. 

Mr. Paulley, went in appeal to UK Supreme Court against the impugned order.

Judgement of Supreme Court

To read the judgement dated 18 Jan 2017 of  The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in FirstGroup Plc (Respondent) v Paulley (Appellant) [2017] UKSC 4, click here.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Mr Paulley’s appeal, albeit only to a limited extent. Lord Neuberger gave the lead judgment (with which Lord Reed agreed) allowing the appeal but only to the extent that FirstGroup’s policy requiring a driver to simply request a non-wheelchair user to vacate the space without taking any further steps was unjustified. 

Where a driver who has made such a request concludes that a refusal is unreasonable, he or she should consider some further step to pressurize the non-wheelchair user to vacate the space, depending on the circumstances. Lord Toulson and Lord Sumption write concurring judgments. On the issue of the order to be made, this majority declines to uphold an award of damages. Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke also allow the appeal but they would have restored the order of the Recorder in full, including upholding the award of damages. 

Reasons for the Decision 

[References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment]

Under section 29 of the 2010 Act, as a “public service provider”, FirstGroup must not discriminate against a person requiring its services by not providing the person with the service, and it must make “reasonable adjustments” to avoid substantial disadvantage to disabled persons [20-26]. 

The Recorder’s judgment effectively required a policy that could lead to a non-wheelchair user being ordered off the bus [40-45]. The Court of Appeal was right to reject this. An absolute rule that any non-wheelchair user must vacate the space would be unreasonable: there are many circumstances in which it could be unreasonable to expect a non-wheelchair user to vacate a space, and even more, to get off the bus, even where the space is needed by a wheelchair user [46-48]. 

Even a qualified rule (i.e. that any non-wheelchair user must vacate if it is reasonable) implemented through mandatory enforcement would be likely to lead to confrontation with other passengers (not least where the non-wheelchair user vacating the space affected other travellers) and delay [50-51]. Passengers are not clearly subject to a statutory obligation to comply with a policy relating to the use of the space, and would not appear to be under such an obligation to get off the bus if they fail to do so [52]. 

Even though the hearing in the Court of Appeal had proceeded on the basis that it was not part of Mr Paulley’s case [59], the argument that FirstGroup’s PCP should have gone further than it did, albeit not as far as the Recorder concluded, has more force. FirstGroup cannot be criticised for choosing not to express the Notice in more forceful terms: it was aimed at politely requiring non-wheelchair users to vacate the space; there was evidence that “directive” notices are a less effective means of communication with the public; and the use of specially emphatic language should not determine legal liability in this case [63]. 

The suggestion that the Notice should state that priority of wheelchair users “would be enforced” would be false [64]. However, it was not enough for FirstGroup to instruct its drivers simply to request non-wheelchair users to vacate the space and do nothing further if the request was rejected. The approach of the driver must depend upon the circumstances, but where he or she concludes that the refusal is unreasonable, some further step to pressurise the non-wheelchair user to move should be considered, such as rephrasing the request as a requirement (especially where the non-wheelchair user could move elsewhere in the bus) or even a refusal to drive on for several minutes [67]. 

Lord Toulson agrees [83-85] adding that fresh legislative consideration is desirable [87]. Lord Sumption also agrees albeit with reservations [92]. So far as damages are concerned, Lord Neuberger (with whom Lords Sumption, Reed and Toulson agree) concludes that the Recorder did not specifically consider whether, if FirstGroup had simply required its drivers to be more forceful, there was a prospect that it would have made a difference in this case. It is therefore not possible to conclude that there would have been a real prospect that such an adjustment would have resulted in Mr Paulley not being placed in the disadvantage that he was, and so an award of damages is not possible [60-61]. Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke dissent in part. 

As the Recorder found, it was reasonable to expect bus operators to do more than FirstGroup did [102-109]. His judgment did not necessarily require ejection of a passenger who refused to move from the bus nor did it create an absolute rule [106]; [129-131]; [137]. Had the practice suggested by the claimant been in force, there was at least a real prospect that Mr Paulley would likely have been able to travel [108]; [138]. This being so, it was unjust to deny Mr Paulley damages [109]; [160]. 

[References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment]

Delhi High Court Strikes Down Disability-Based Exclusion insisting 70% Disability Cap for MBBS Admissions in MBBS Admissions despite clearing NEET [Judgement Included]

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Justice V. Kameswar Rao

Case No.: W.P.(C) 6041/2013

Case Title: Sanjana Sinha v. University of Delhi & Anr.

Date of Judgment: 31 May 2016

Background

The present writ petition before the Delhi High Court raised significant questions concerning disability discrimination in medical education and the exclusionary eligibility standards imposed upon persons with disabilities seeking admission to MBBS courses.

The petitioner, Sanjana Sinha, had suffered amputation of her left leg in 2012 following severe medical complications during treatment procedures intended to stabilise her blood pressure. At the age of seventeen, she underwent a life-altering medical crisis which ultimately resulted in permanent locomotor disability. She was subsequently fitted with a prosthetic limb and was able to independently walk and perform daily activities without external assistance.

Despite these circumstances, the petitioner successfully completed her schooling and qualified the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) examination for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for the academic session 2013–14.

Having qualified NEET, the petitioner applied for admission under the category reserved for persons with disabilities. Her disability certificate recorded 80% locomotor disability. The Medical Board at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital also certified her disability at 80%.

However, her candidature was rejected on the basis of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 framed by the Medical Council of India and the admission bulletin issued by the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi. The impugned framework restricted eligibility under the disability quota only to candidates with locomotor disability of lower limbs between 50% and 70%, thereby excluding candidates with disability exceeding 70%.

Aggrieved by this exclusionary criterion, the petitioner approached the Court challenging:

• the amendment dated 25 March 2009 to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997;
• the Medical Council of India communication dated 21 April 2009; and
• the relevant clause in the admission bulletin issued by the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi.

The petitioner also sought directions for admission to the MBBS course under the disability quota.

Key Observations of the Court

The Division Bench undertook a detailed constitutional examination of disability-based exclusion within professional education and questioned the legality of rigid percentage-based barriers imposed upon persons with disabilities.

At the outset, the Court recognised that welfare legislation concerning persons with disabilities must receive a purposive and beneficial interpretation to ensure that disabled persons are not denied equal opportunity merely because they do not conform to narrow physical standards.

The Bench observed:

“A welfare legislation needs to be given a purposive interpretation, inasmuch as to give benefit to a person with disability so that he/she does not feel less privileged than a normal person.”

A central issue before the Court was whether exclusion of candidates with locomotor disability exceeding 70% from MBBS admissions could withstand constitutional scrutiny.

The Court carefully examined the rationale underlying the impugned Medical Council of India regulations and found the exclusionary framework arbitrary and discriminatory. It observed that disability percentage alone cannot determine an individual’s capability to pursue medical education.

Importantly, the Court recognised that disability cannot be mechanically equated with incapacity. The Bench noted that the petitioner, despite her disability, had independently functioned with the assistance of a prosthetic limb, completed her education successfully, and qualified a highly competitive national examination.

The Court further emphasised that functional capability and individual competence must prevail over rigid medical categorisation detached from actual ability.

Rejecting stereotypical assumptions regarding disability, the Bench observed that exclusionary standards based solely on numerical disability percentages undermine constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.

The Court also recognised the broader implications of denying persons with disabilities access to professional education. Such exclusion, the Court observed, perpetuates systemic marginalisation and reinforces barriers preventing persons with disabilities from entering professions traditionally viewed as inaccessible.

Importantly, the judgment reflected a transition away from purely medicalised understandings of disability toward a rights-based approach grounded in inclusion, capability, and substantive equality.

Relief Granted and Limitations

The Delhi High Court granted relief in favour of the petitioner and held that exclusion of candidates with disability above 70% was legally unsustainable.

The Court effectively invalidated the restrictive framework limiting eligibility solely to candidates with locomotor disability between 50% and 70%. It also directed that the petitioner’s candidature should not be rejected in future merely because her disability was assessed at 80%.

However, despite succeeding on the legal issue, the petitioner did not receive immediate admission to the MBBS course because the academic session for which she had appeared had already concluded.

The Court observed:

“At this point of time, no direction can be issued to give admission to the petitioner on the basis of the said examination. The only direction that can be given is… the respondent shall not deny admission to the petitioner if she is successful in a future NEET examination on the ground that she has a disability of 80%.”

As a consequence, the petitioner lost a crucial academic year and was required to reappear in the NEET examination despite having already qualified earlier.

The case therefore highlights a recurring concern in disability rights litigation — delayed judicial relief may ultimately deprive successful litigants of meaningful practical justice even where constitutional violations are recognised.

Commentary

The decision in Sanjana Sinha v. University of Delhi & Anr. remains an important judgment against structural ableism within professional educational institutions and significantly contributed to the evolution of disability rights jurisprudence in India.

One of the most important aspects of the ruling lies in its rejection of the assumption that higher degrees of physical disability necessarily translate into professional incompetence. By rejecting rigid percentage-based exclusions, the Court affirmed that capability must be assessed through actual functional ability rather than abstract medical classifications.

The judgment also advanced the principle of substantive equality. Formal equality would merely permit disabled candidates to apply for admission; substantive equality requires dismantling institutional barriers that prevent disabled persons from genuinely accessing educational opportunities.

Another important contribution of the ruling is its movement away from paternalistic and medically deterministic approaches toward a rights-based understanding of disability. The Court recognised that persons with disabilities are entitled to equal participation in professional education and cannot be excluded through arbitrary eligibility standards unsupported by rational justification.

At the same time, the case exposes the limitations of delayed judicial intervention - many a time not because petitioner came late but the justice was delayed. Although the petitioner ultimately succeeded in establishing that the exclusionary framework was discriminatory, she still lost an irreplaceable academic year and had to undergo the uncertainty of appearing in the entrance examination again. The larger message is that MBBS admission cannot be denied solely due to high disability percentage.

The judgment therefore serves both as a significant constitutional affirmation of disability rights and as a reminder that delayed remedies in educational matters can substantially dilute the practical value of judicial relief.

The ruling remains an important precedent affirming that disability rights jurisprudence must be guided by dignity, capability, inclusion, and substantive equality rather than by restrictive medicalised notions of limitation and incapacity.

Read the judgement

Kerala High Court: Non-consideration of VH candidate by Kannur University illegal

Terming the non-consideration of VH candidate and appointment of another candidate on the post reserved for persons with Disabilities as illegal, High Court has directed the Kannur University to appoint the visually impaired petitioner within two months.


HC to the aid of visually challenged woman

KOCHI, June 9, 2015
K.S. SUDHI

The High Court of Kerala has come to the support of Prasannakumari, a visually challenged woman from Chottanikkara, who appeared for an interview to a post of lecturer in law reserved for disabled persons in Kannur University.

Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar of the High Court ordered Kannur University to consider the suitability of Ms. Prasannakumari “for the post notified by treating her as a candidate who has the necessary age qualification for the post and is otherwise eligible for the post.”

The court also ordered the university to complete the aforesaid exercise within two months.

In her writ petition, the 40-year-old woman stated that she applied for the post of lecturer in law, reserved for the physically challenged, in 2008 and appeared for the interview on October 5, 2011.

Later, she received information that another woman had been appointed to the post.

The petitioner approached the court to quash the appointment and direct the university to consider her for the post.

Allowing the petition, the court held that the “action of the university in not considering the suitability of the petitioner for the post of lecturer in law, under the quota earmarked for the physically challenged candidates, is clearly illegal.”

The court also declared illegal the appointment of another candidate to the post that was intended for physically challenged candidates, consequent to a finding that no such candidate was available.

The appointment of another candidate as the lecture in law was also annulled by the court.

Source:  The Hindu 

Bombay High Court rules Doctors with disabilities can not be denied admission to PG Courses

Please refer to my earlier post in which the Bombay High Court had allowed admission of a disabled girl to the MBBS Course. However, it seems MCI doesn't want to be pro-active in considering disability from a human angle (doctors have been trained to look at disability from a medical angle... so it may not be their fault, its a systemic problem! :-)

However, MCI may learn from the increasing number of cases getting reprieve from the High Court on such issue and frame a disability friendly policy rather than a medically oriented "degree of disability" policy without any human touch and effort to see the ability in the disability !

Three disabled doctors get high court's reprieve

MUMBAI: Three disabled doctors who were denied the chance for admission to PG Medical Courses have got reprieve from Bombay High Court.  A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice Ranjit More, in an interim order, directed authorities to consider their case for admission to a PG course in (medicine) or in a non-surgical branch. 

"(Their case would be considered) under physically handicapped category by considering (them) to be eligible for such reservation and on the basis of performance in the CET," said the judges. 

The petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the rules, which said that a candidate with more than 70% disability of the lower limbs cannot be considered to be eligible for admission. The lawyers for the petitioners said the MCI had erred in not considering that the medical courses can be divided into several categories. Dr Manoj Landge, Dr Rakesh Ukey and Dr Astha Ganeriwal were considered ineligible for admissions under this rule.  

Bombay & Madras HC allow admission to disabled students in MBBS

Dear Friends,

In two different cases, the Bombay and Chennai High Courts have directed the MCI to give admission to students with disabilities in MBBS course. Here are both the cases:

Case No. 1 at Bombay HC

Bombay high court opens MBBS door for disabled student

Published: Thursday, Aug 5, 2010, 1:44 IST

By Mayura Janwalkar | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA  

Just days after it told the state government that the latter needed to change its mindset in accommodating the disabled, the Bombay high court on Wednesday directed the state to grant a 19-year-old physically challenged student provisional admission to an MBBS course.

Khan Mohammed Tarique Mehmood, who has a lower limb disability, had moved the high court after he was denied admission to the course in the physically handicapped category.

The Director of Medical Education and Research (DMER) had refused admission to Mehmood on grounds that he suffered from a disability of more than 75%. As per the Medical Council of India (MCI) rules, a person with locomotive disability of lower limb (more than 50%) can not apply for MBBS.

However, in his petition before the court, Mehmood had contended that his disability was certified as 50% by the All-India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AIIPMR). Moreover, Mehmood had also stated that he stood seventh in the state in the handicapped category in the common entrance test conducted by the government.

According to Mehmood, the DMER’s decision was contrary to the certificate issued by the IIPMR, which is a central government institute named in the DMER’s admission brochure. A bench presided by chief justice Mohit Shah admitted the petition and granted provisional admission to Mehmood in an interim order.

On August 2, the court granted provisional admission to a visually challenged girl who wished to pursue a career in physiotherapy.

-------

Case No. 2 at Madras HC


Disabled girl wins court battle for MBBS admission
TNN Oct 2, 2011, 03.31AM IST

CHENNAI: In a major victory, P Divya of Royapuram has won a court case which will now enable disabled students across the state - other than those with locomotor disability in the lower limbs - to seek admission for an MBBS course. The Madras high court has directed the directorate of medical education (DME) to provide Divya admission to the MBBS course for this year.

After applying for a medical seat under the special category (orthopaedically physically disabled), Divya attended counselling on June 30, 2011. Medical council of India (MCI) regulations stipulate that only people with 40-70% locomotor disability in the lower limbs are entitled to 3% reservation for MBBS admission under the Persons with Disabilities Act (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act), 1995. Though she produced a disability certificate from the regional medical board, government hospital, Chennai, it was not accepted by the selection committee.

"They did not give us a proper reason for rejecting her so we filed a writ petition," counsel for petitioner R Prabhakaran said. When the petition came up in the HC, Justice D Hariparanthaman had directed DME to ascertain Divya's disability and also ordered that one seat be kept vacant. She was sent to another regional medical board at GH, which gave a certificate on July 19.

This certificate said she suffered from a spinal deformity due to which she had a torso imbalance and a total physical permanent disability of 46%. If the certificate was read to the effect that Divya suffered locomotor disability above 40%, she was entitled to admission under the 3% reservation category, he added.

Passing orders, Justice D Hariparanthaman said the reservation provided only to persons with locomotory disability in the lower limbs was in violation of the Persons with Disabilities Act. He quashed the notification and directed MCI to include other categories of disabled persons, more particularly those with disabilities above 40% in its regulation.

Bombay High Court Asks Government to Change its mindset on PH

Change your mindset on physically challenged: Bombay high court tells govt

Published: Tuesday, Aug 3, 2010, 2:29 IST

By Mayura Janwalkar | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA  

To read from source, Click here

Krutika Purohit, 17, had nursed the dream of being a physiotherapist since she was nine.

However, with her visual disability, clearing the MHCET for pursuing a degree course in physiotherapy with a good score and obtaining “provisional admission” to the course, has been no cakewalk.

Purohit, perhaps the first visually challenged student to get admission into the four-year degree course in physiotherapy, found an ally in the Bombay high court recently.

The court told the directorate of medical education and research (DMER) that earmarking seats under Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995, serves no purpose without a change in mindset.

"This mindset has to change. You have to feel from within. Every family has a person with some disability. You have to lend a helping hand," justice SC Dharmadhikari said. "They (persons with disabilities) too are mainstream students. You (state government) are not lowering any standards for them.”

Purohit and the Indian association of visually impaired physiotherapists had moved the high court after Purohit was barred from taking MHCET exams owing to her disability.

Although the court allowed Purohit, a Khar resident, to appear for the MHCET examination on April 23, her way to becoming a physiotherapist was far from clear. Purohit's advocate Kanchan Pamnani, herself visually impaired , said the DMER was wrongly applying rules to the physiotherapy course.

The MCI rules say a person with locomotive disability of lower limb (50%-70%) can apply for MBBS courses. But in this case, the authorities did not apply their mind if a visually impaired person could study physiotherapy.

Assistant government pleader GW Mattos said the government would take progressive steps but Purohit's case should be referred to the council of the Maharashtra university of health sciences.

The court also directed the chief commissioner of disabilities to issue directions to universities within two months.

DLU East - a unit of Shishu Sarothi explores success in rights through courts

Dear Friends,

Shishu Sarothi through its unit Disability Legislation Unit South has been a front runner in taking up disability rights issues in the north east region of India. In a recent PIL filed before the Gauhati High Court bearing No. Writ Petition(Civil) 34/2008, they have obtained favourable orders from the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Chief Justice J Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr.Justice A Potsangham on December 17, 2008.

In the instant case, the Director of Medical Education, Assam issued a notice for admission to paramedical courses in the three medical courses to fill up 400 seats among 12 different paramedical courses.

In the impugned admission notice the Director changed the definition of disability to suit their own whims and fancies. To fill up 3% quota of disabled they choose "only the persons with locomotor disability of the lower limbs and having 50 to 70 per cent of disability". This by any imagination was a fun of the law of the land and an attempt to throttle the spirit of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act-1995 and the Constitution of India.

Here is the coverage that might interest you:

Assam Times: Where executive fails, Judiciary prevails

Where executive fails, Judiciary prevails

Daynath Singh on 31 December, 2008 

The greatest challenges facing persons with disabilities lie in the areas of access, education and employment, said Ms Anju Talukdar, coordinator, Disability Law Unit, NE. Addressing the media persons at Guwahati Press Club on December 31, 2008, she expressed concern over the physical barriers in the environment coupled with societal prejudice severely restrict and often completely block available opportunities. One of the laws enacted to ensure the protection of persons with disabilities in India is the 'Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act 1995. Unfortunately, even with its many beneficial provisions, the said Act has failed to achieve its objectives due to poor implementation and in many cases non-implementation of its provisions. This was simply demonstrated in a recent case involving admissions to seats in paramedical courses in the three medical colleges of Assam.

On May 12, last an Educational Notice was issued by the Director of Medical Education, Assam, for admission to paramedical courses in the three medical courses. A total of 400 seats were to be filled up among 12 different paramedical courses. The Act guarantees certain rights to persons with disabilities including the right spelt out in Section 39 which says "all educational institutions to reserve seats for persons with disabilities. All government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than three percent seats for persons with disabilities."

The advertisement issued by the Director of Medical Education provided for three per cent reservation for persons with disabilities, but the definition of who is a person with disability was as unique as it was inaccurate. It was also clearly contrary to the law, she said. Under the Persons with Disabilities Act 'person with disability' means a person with 40 per cent or more of blindness, low vision, leprosy-cured, hearing impairment, locomotors disability, including cerebral palsy, mental retardation and mental illness.

This very clearly definition of disability as spelt out by the law was not enough for the authorities. They came up with their own definition and as per the admission notice, three percent reservation quota would be made available for persons with disabilities, but 'only the persons with locomotors disability of the lower limbs and having 50 to 70 per cent of disability shall be eligible for this quota.'

This was clearly against the provisions of the Act. Anju Talukdar and Rakhi Sirauthia Choudhury of the Disability Law Unit, Northeast challenged this educational notice in the Gauhati High Court in a Public Interest Litigation, which was numbered as PIL 34/2008. This Unit is a project of Shishu Sarothi and fights for the rights of persons with disabilities by creating awareness on the various disability laws, advocating disabled friendly policies and facilitating litigation in case of violation of rights.

The case was argued on behalf of the petitions by their counsel, Siddharth Shankar Dey, renowned advocate of the Gauhati High Court and strong defender of disability rights. On June 16, 2008 the petition was admitted by the court and as an interim measure, the authorities were directed to receive applications from all categories of persons with disabilities. On June 27, the Director of Medical Education issued a corrigendum inviting applications from all categories of persons with disabilities.

The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Chief Justice J Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A Potsangham on December 17 last allowed the petition directing that three percent reservation for persons with disabilities would be available for all categories of disabilities. The High Court rejected the argument of the State of Assam that restricting the reservation to only the persons with locomotors disability of the lower limbs and having 50 to 70 percent of disability was justified under the guidelines of the Medical council of India. Interestingly, the documents relied on by the State of Assam itself showed that the Medical Council of India had prescribed guidelines only with reference to admissions to MBBS and PG medicine courses. No mention was made of paramedical courses. Further, there was nothing in the law to exclude persons with other disabilities from qualifying on merit to the paramedical courses. So no such exclusion can be made for seats reserved for persons with disabilities.

The decision of the Gauhati High Court is a huge encouragement to the disability sector –not just in Assam, but the entire Northeast and in fact the whole country. It is often seen that government authorities neglect and ignore their obligations under the law. There has often been no other recourse available but to approach the courts to secure the rights and interests of the persons with disabilities. While the executive continues to pose obstacles in the path, it is a huge relief that the judiciary has consistently proved a bastion and bulwark in defense of persons with disabilities, said Ms Talukdar.

- See more at: http://www.assamtimes.org/node/2394#sthash.MPaysaBk.dpuf

Another girl denied admission to medical course -this time due to higher %age of disability

Dear friends,

I want to share another case of neglect and improper application of disability laws, against persons with disabilities rather than in favour of.

The girl, Pooja Dubey, quite brilliant though, has been denied admission on the grounds of her 80% degree of disability. While a national institute has declared her fit, the authority do not believe it. The girl emphasizes that the degree is with respect to the disability (Post Polio Residual Paralysis) in her right leg only while she is competent to undergo the course, the medical institute argues that it is with respect to whole body!!!

Another excuse to disregard the Act! Though Mumbai High Court has asked for re-examination of the candidate and the possibilities are that she will be taken in as the same institute has already declared her fit to undergo the course before appearing for the entrance test! I am concerned that the Learned Judges went on to ask her that what she will do in emergency - raising a question on her abilities ! I feel the courts should refrain from such targeting questions when her assessment on record confirms her capabilities.

Here is the news

HC asks medical body to decide disabled candidate

Mayura Janwalkar Tuesday, September 30, 2008 03:20 IST

Pooja Dubey was denied admission due to a handicap in her right leg.

Pooja Dubey, 17, moved the Bombay high court after being denied admission in the MBBS course owing to a handicap in her right leg. She probably drew hope from the case of Dr Saroj Yadav who despite the same handicap in her arm was allowed a post-graduate seat in the radiology faculty by the court earlier this month.

Although Yadav left the court premises with all hurdles on her way to becoming a radiologist removed, Dubey’s fate still remains uncertain. The case of Mira-Road resident Dubey is, however, not identical to that if Yadav. Dubey who suffers from post polio residual paralysis of her right limb between her thigh and her knee, secured the 15th rank among handicapped candidates in the medical CET conducted in May this year.

She and her father Bhanu Prakash Dubey hit the panic button after her name did not appear even on the second list of selected candidates issued in August. Her father had written several letters to the Directorate of Medical Education and Research (DMER). He also submitted a certificate from the All India Institute of Physical, Medical and Rehabilitation stating that Dubey was fit to undergo training in the Health Science course that she had opted for.

However, the DMER had refused her admission on the ground that the percentage of her disability was 80%. As per the DMER and the Medical Counsel of India, a disability of more than 40% and less than 70% was permissible for pursuing a medical course.

Dubey’s advocates Mayur Khandeparkar and Swapna Kode contended that she had been examined by the medical board of the DMER prior to seeking admission and nowhere during the admission procedure was Dubey informed that she was ineligible to pursue the course.

After hearing the case on Monday, chief justice Swatanter Kumar and justice SA Bobade directed the DMER to reassess Dubey’s case and disposed off the petition. “If the competent authority (DMER) is saying that the disability can hamper your (Dubey’s) performance, how can the court say otherwise?” Kumar said. He asked, “What will you do in case of emergency?” Dubey’s dream of becoming a doctor, now hinges on the decision of the DMER that has to re-consider her case in a week’s time.

Khandeparkar told the court that Dubey under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, had a right to seek admission to the course. He added that her left leg was fully functional and the 80% disability, as stated by the DMER, was restricted to her right leg. Bobade, however, remarked that the percentage of disability was not just restricted to the affected organ but was with reference to the whole body.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1194277&pageid=0