Appeal by a person with disabilities, who was denied admission to an MBBS (medical) course despite a distinguished academic record and qualifying exam scores. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of disability guidelines and the principle of “reasonable accommodation” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court reviews previous judgments, particularly Omkar Ramchandra Gond and Om Rathod, which criticized rigid disability assessment methods and emphasized functional assessment over mere quantification of disability. Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturns the lower court’s decision, favoring a detailed report from a dissenting expert, Dr. Satendra Singh, who found Anmol capable of pursuing medical studies with appropriate accommodations, and directs the National Medical Commission to revise its exclusionary guidelines by March 2025.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Constitution of India, Article 41 – Graduate Medical Education Regulations (Amendment), 2019, Appendix H-1 – NEET-UG 2024 – Education – Persons with Disabilities – Admission in MBBS Course – Rejection of claim of the appellant, a ‘person with disabilities’ – Directive Principles of State Policy – Judicial review – Medical opinion of the AIIMS, including the opinion of Dr. Satendra Singh, that the appellant has Locomotor disability 50% with Club foot right lower limb with Phocomelia, Left middle ring finger through middle phalanx with right middle index finger through middle phalanx. Further, he has speech and language disability of 20%. The final disability computed was 58% – Five members of Medical Board observed that the current National Medical Commission (NMC) Guidelines needed revision and that with respect to the current Guidelines, they are not able to declare the appellant fit for pursuing MBBS Course – Prescription of “both hands intact…” is completely antithetical to Article 41 of the Constitution; the principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the salutary provisions of the RPwD Act – It also indicates a classification which is overbroad and glorifies ‘ableism’ –
Held that the report of the five members of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences cannot be the basis to deny the appellant’s admission to the MBBS Course – Firstly, the report does not satisfy the test laid down in Omkar Ramchandra Gond borne out by the report of five members – Secondly, as mandated or required in both Omkar Ramchandra Gond and Om Rathod , reasons have not been assigned by the five members of the Board for denying the appellant his right to pursue the MBBS Course – Thirdly, the need to assess beyond the quantified disability and the need to opine whether the individual with a disability aided by modern scientific tools and devices can enter the MBBS program has not been fulfilled by the five members of the Board.
This is apart from the fact that the five members of the Board have recorded statements in the nature of disclaimers as set out hereinabove – Though, the courts are not expert bodies in the matters of medicine yet courts have the jurisdiction to ensure that the manner in which the Board proceeds and functions are in compliance with the established principles of law – It is not just a question of jurisdiction of the court but a duty cast upon the Court; since it is the Courts which enforce the fundamental rights – Report of the five-member Board rejected – Correct approach is the one that Dr. Satendra Singh has adopted viz.- to not bar a candidate at the threshold but grant the candidate the choice after completing the MBBS Course, to decide whether he wishes to specialize in a non- surgical or medical branch or continue as a General Duty Medical Officer – It will be unfair to presume incompetence at the threshold without first providing an opportunity to the candidate and ensuring the availability of accommodations and assistive products – Report of Dr. Satendra Singh accepted – Judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court liable to be set aside and the admission granted to the appellant by virtue of our order dated 12.12.2024 in the Govt. Medical College, Sirohi is confirmed.
(Para 21, 24, 25, 27, 29 to 31, 35, 43, 44, 46 and 47)
Anmol V. Union Of India & Ors.
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 313: (DoJ 21-02-2025)
