Delhi High Court Strikes Down Blanket Ban on MBBS Student Migration, Upholding Rights of Persons with Disabilities

In a landmark ruling that underscores the importance of reasonable accommodation for students with disabilities in medical education, the Delhi High Court has declared Regulation 18 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, ultra vires and invalid. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, held the regulation's absolute prohibition on inter-college migration for undergraduate medical students as manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The decision came in response to a petition by Sahil Arsh, a visually impaired MBBS student seeking transfer from Government Medical College, Barmer in Rajasthan to a Delhi-based institution due to deteriorating health conditions exacerbated by the local climate. The court not only quashed the National Medical Commission's (NMC) rejection of the student's plea but also directed the NMC to reconsider the application and formulate a balanced policy allowing migrations in exceptional cases. This judgment reinforces the obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, emphasizing that regulatory rigidity cannot override constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.

Case Background

Sahil Arsh, the petitioner, suffers from a 40% vision impairment, certified by the Chief Medical Officer of Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. He cleared the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) UG 2023 in the Other Backward Class-Persons with Disabilities (OBC-PwD) category. However, initial counseling authorities denied him participation in the PwD quota, forcing him to approach the Supreme Court via Writ Petition (C) No. 782/2023. On September 22, 2023, the Apex Court upheld his PwD status and directed the authorities to allow his participation in counseling as a PwD candidate.

By the time the Supreme Court's order was implemented, all regular rounds of counseling had concluded, leaving Arsh to join the stray vacancy round in late September 2023. Limited seats were available, none in Delhi, compelling him to enroll at Government Medical College, Barmer, affiliated with Rajasthan University of Health Sciences. The harsh desert climate of Barmer soon aggravated his condition, leading to eye ulcers and necessitating treatment at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. Advised by his doctors, Arsh sought migration to University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi, where a PwD-reserved seat was available under the University of Delhi.

Arsh's requests for no-objection certificates from the relevant universities went unanswered, prompting representations to the NMC. When these yielded no relief, he filed Writ Petition (C) 17306/2024, which a Single Judge disposed of on December 16, 2024, directing the NMC to decide his representation expeditiously. On December 30, 2024, the NMC rejected the plea, citing Regulation 18's blanket ban on migrations post-2023 and arguing that Arsh had ample time during admission to choose a suitable college, fully aware of his disability.

Challenging this rejection and the regulation itself, Arsh filed the present Writ Petition (C) 1712/2025. The core legal questions were: Does Regulation 18's total prohibition on student migration pass constitutional scrutiny under Article 14? Does it conflict with the RPWD Act's mandate for reasonable accommodation? And, in exceptional cases involving PwD students, can such a ban deny equitable access to education without arbitrariness?

The case timeline highlights systemic delays: from NEET 2023 in May to Supreme Court intervention in September, admission in the stray round, health deterioration by late 2024, and the High Court's judgment on February 4, 2026—spanning nearly three years of litigation and hardship.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel, Ms. Aditi Gupta assisted by Ms. Lavanya Bhardwaj, argued that Regulation 18 imposes a complete ban on migration, rendering it manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14's equality clause. They contended that such a blanket prohibition serves no public interest and lacks nexus with the regulations' objective of maintaining medical education standards. Instead, it denies relief even to deserving cases, like Arsh's, where counseling delays—attributable to authorities' initial refusal to recognize his PwD status—forced a suboptimal choice.

Emphasizing Arsh's circumstances, the counsel highlighted that Supreme Court intervention came too late for regular counseling, leaving him with Barmer as the only viable option. The harsh climate's impact on his vision impairment, requiring Delhi-based treatment, exemplified a "most deserving" case warranting reasonable accommodation under Sections 3(2) and 5 of the RPWD Act, 2016. They pointed to prior regimes: the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 (GMER 1997), allowed migrations on compassionate grounds, and the 2023 draft regulations (Clause 20) permitted exceptional transfers for good reasons, not routine ones. Changing to a total ban without rationale was unreasonable, especially for PwD students, infringing non-discrimination and equality rights.

The NMC's counsel, Mr. T. Singhdev with associates, defended the regulation as a valid exercise of powers under Sections 24 and 57 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. They argued no challenge lay on competence or ultra vires grounds, as the regulation aligned with the Act's framework. The ban aimed to uphold merit-based admissions via NEET, prevent misuse of migration to bypass merit (e.g., backdoor entries via personal reasons), and ensure uniformity in education. Post-NEET, counseling provides full opportunity for informed choices; accepting a seat implies awareness of implications.

They justified removing migration provisions from GMER 1997, citing past abuses that undermined admission integrity. Standardization requires students to complete courses, including internships, at one institution for consistent faculty interaction and adaptation to the environment. For Arsh, the NMC claimed he knew his disability during admission and had "sufficient time" to opt wisely, rejecting any special consideration post-admission.

University of Delhi's counsel, Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal with associates, supported the NMC, focusing on administrative burdens but not contesting the constitutional challenge directly. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences did not actively participate beyond providing details.

Legal Analysis

The court's reasoning centered on judicial review of subordinate legislation, applying tests from Supreme Court precedents. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641, subordinate rules lack plenary legislation's immunity and can be struck down for arbitrariness under Article 14 if manifestly unreasonable. The Bench echoed this, noting Regulation 18's total ban fails this muster, as it prohibits migrations even in extreme compassionate cases without rational nexus to educational standards.

Drawing from Cellular Operators Assn. of India v. TRAI (2016) 7 SCC 703, the court rejected the NMC's motive of preventing misuse, holding valid ends do not immunize arbitrary means. The "manifest arbitrariness" test from Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1996) 10 SCC 304 and Sharma Transport v. State of A.P. (2002) 2 SCC 188 requires delegated legislation to be reasonably expected from the authority; here, a blanket ban was not.

The analogy to Jigya Yadav v. CBSE (2021) 7 SCC 535 was pivotal. There, the Supreme Court invalidated CBSE bye-laws banning post-result name changes as excessively restrictive under Article 19, despite administrative efficiency concerns. Similarly, Regulation 18's embargo ignores post-admission needs, like Arsh's health deterioration due to authority delays. The court observed: possibility of abuse cannot justify denying legitimate rights; total prohibition is disproportionate, not a reasonable restraint.

Under the RPWD Act, 2016, Section 3 mandates equality, non-discrimination, and reasonable accommodation, while Section 16 duties for educational institutions include individualized support. The NMC, as a public body, must comply; denying Arsh's transfer violates these, especially since his predicament stemmed from counseling lapses, not personal fault.

Distinguishing concepts, the court clarified quashing for arbitrariness (unlike mere unreasonableness) applies here, as the ban offends Article 14 by treating all cases uniformly without classifying exceptional ones. No precedents directly on medical migrations were cited beyond GMER 1997, but the analysis integrated RPWD obligations, holding the regulation's rigidity defeats statutory protections for PwD.

The Bench critiqued the NMC's rejection order, calling its presumption of "sufficient time" during admission factually flawed and insensitive, as Arsh's options were curtailed by systemic errors.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with incisive observations emphasizing constitutional and statutory imperatives:

• "Facts of this case depict as to how the petitioner, who is a person suffering with 40% disability of vision impairment, has been denied his right to reasonable accommodation by the respondent on the basis of a Regulation that puts a blanket ban on a student pursuing under graduate course in Medicine to seek migration from one medical college to the other even though, he may be most deserving to seek such migration."

• On the regulation's validity: "The impugned Regulation 18 of Regulations 2023, for the discussions made above, in our opinion, does not pass the constitutional muster as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, the same being manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary, is held to be ultra vires."

• Addressing misuse fears: "Merely because any provision permitting migration of a student from one medical institution to another is prone to misuse, it cannot be a ground for putting a blanket ban on migration, which results in prohibition on transfer in a suitable and most deserving case as well."

• On RPWD Act compliance: "Such provisions enacted by the Parliament cannot remain only a decorative and admirable piece of literature kept in a bookshelf, rather they are statutory legislative mandates to be followed by the Government, government authorities, instrumentalities of the State, statutory bodies and all other public bodies, which will encompass in its fold the Commission as well."

• Final declaration: "Regulation 18 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2023 is, thus, declared ultra vires and, therefore, invalid."

These excerpts highlight the court's focus on balancing regulatory goals with individual rights, particularly for vulnerable groups.

Court's Decision

The Delhi High Court unequivocally held Regulation 18 ultra vires, quashing it as arbitrary and unconstitutional. It set aside the NMC's December 30, 2024, rejection order and directed the Commission to reconsider Arsh's migration request to University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi, within three weeks, factoring in his disability, health needs, and the case's exceptional nature.

Additionally, the NMC was mandated to amend regulations or frame a policy allowing migrations in appropriate circumstances, with safeguards against routine or misuse-prone transfers—limited to exceptional, deserving cases like compassionate grounds or PwD accommodations.

The implications are profound. For PwD students, it ensures regulatory flexibility aligns with RPWD Act duties, preventing blanket bans from perpetuating exclusion. Practically, it opens doors for health-related or location-based transfers, potentially easing access to better facilities without compromising merit. Future cases may invoke this precedent to challenge rigid policies in education, urging bodies like NMC to adopt nuanced approaches—e.g., conditional migrations post-first year, verified by medical boards.

Broader effects include reinforcing Article 14's role in scrutinizing subordinate legislation, especially in sensitive sectors like medical education. It signals to regulators that administrative efficiency cannot trump dignity and equality; misuse can be curbed via conditions, not prohibitions. For the legal community, this bolsters arguments in disability rights litigation, promoting inclusive policies. As medical admissions grow competitive, this ruling advocates for empathy in NEET counseling, ensuring PwD quotas translate to meaningful opportunities, not mere formalities.

In essence, the decision restores balance, affirming that education, particularly in medicine, must accommodate human vulnerabilities to fulfill constitutional promises.