Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Omkar Ramchandra Gond – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India & Ors – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 2024
Decided On : 15-10-2024
Disability - Admission Eligibility - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 2(m), 2(r), 3, 15, 32 - The court emphasized that quantified disability alone should not disqualify candidates from educational opportunities, advocating for a purposive interpretation of the RPwD Act to ensure inclusivity and reasonable accommodation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, diagnosed with a speech and language disability, applied for the NEET exam under the PwD and OBC categories but was denied admission based on a disability certificate quantifying his disability at 44%/45%, which was deemed ineligible under NMC guidelines.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the NMC's interpretation of disability percentages was overly broad and discriminatory, holding that mere quantification of disability should not automatically disqualify candidates from pursuing medical education.
Issues: Whether a candidate with a quantified disability of 40% or more should be disqualified from admission under the PwD category for the MBBS course.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Disability Assessment Boards must evaluate whether a candidate's disability affects their ability to pursue the course, rather than relying solely on the quantified percentage of disability.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is directed to be admitted to the MBBS course.
No. Mere quantification of disability at 40% or above does not automatically disqualify a candidate. The Disability Assessment Board must examine whether the disability actually comes in the way of pursuing the course rather than relying solely on the percentage. (Para 21 , 23 , 48 )
They must positively record whether the disability will or will not come in the way of pursuing the course, and state reasons if concluding ineligibility. They cannot treat candidates as automatons based solely on quantified disability percentages. (Para 46 , 48 )
Yes. Over-inclusive classification that lumps together persons with the same disability percentage who have different functional capacities is antithetical to Article 14 and amounts to treating unequals equally, which the law prohibits. (Para 22 , 25 )
Reasonable accommodation requires necessary and appropriate modifications to ensure equal enjoyment of rights. It must be interpreted broadly to further the objectives of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, not limited to tangible assistive devices. (Para 40 , 41 )
Yes. Pending creation of an appellate body, negative decisions of Disability Assessment Boards are amenable to judicial review, and the court may refer the candidate to a premier medical institute for an independent opinion to grant or deny relief. (Para 50 )
JUDGMENT :
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Omkar Ramchandra Gond (the appellant) grew up in a middle-class family in the city of Latur in Maharashtra State. His father is a government servant. The appellant had a creditable academic performance in his tenth standard scoring 97.2%. He cleared his school final in the first division. The appellant aspired to be a doctor. Nothing wrong with it, except that he had to surmount a few legal hurdles enroute.
2. Admittedly, the appellant has speech and language disability and is diagnosed with Hypernasality with Misarticulation IN K/C/O Repaired Bilateral CLEFT of palate. The appellant is certified to have 45% (in some reports, it was mentioned as 44%) permanent disability as per the Disability Certificate dated 18.05.2017.
3. The appellant applied for the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test NEET (UG), 2024 for admission to MBBS Course from the category of Persons with Disability (for short “PwD”) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) on 18.02.2024.
4. The application form had a disclaimer clause which stated that the eligibility under the PwD Category was purely provisional and was to be governed as per the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines regarding admission of students with “specified disabilities” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short “RPwD Act”).
5. The appellant appeared for the NEET (UG) held on 05.05.2024 and qualified the entrance examination. The Schedule for Centralized Admission Process (CAP) Round-I counseling for admission was notified on 20.08.2024. The appellant applied for the centralized admission process and claimed reservation under the OBC and the PwD category. In the provisional merit list published on 26.08.2024, the name of the appellant figured at 42091. Under the Information brochure, candidates with disability have to submit a disability certificate issued for the year 2024 and have to undergo medical examination at the Disability Assessment Board.
6. The appellant approached the Designated Disability Certification Centre at Sir JJ Group of Hospitals on 16.08.2024. The Certification Centre certified that the appellant has physical disability of speech and language of 44% (in some reports, it was mentioned as 45%) and recorded that based on quantification of disability, the appellant was not eligible to pursue the medical course as per NMC norms. In view of that, the appellant was rendered ineligible person to obtain PwD reservation or to pursue medical course as per the NMC Gazette notification.
7. The Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India, the previous avatar of the NMC, had amended the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, vide notification dated 13.05.2019. The existing Appendix “H” was substituted with Appendix “H-1” providing for guidelines regarding admission to students with “specified disabilities” under the RPwD Act with respect to admission in MBBS course. As per clause 1(D) thereof, persons who have equal to or more than 40% disability were not eligible for Medical Course. The relevant clause of the schedule is extracted hereinbelow:-
| Type of Disabilities | Specified Disability | Disability Range | ||
| Eligible for Medical Course, Not Eligible for PwD Quota | Eligible for Medical Course, Eligible for PwD Quota | Not Eligible for Medical Course | ||
| D. Speech & language disability$ | Organic/neurological causes | Less than 40% Disability | Equal to or more than 40% Disability | |
| $ Persons with Speech Intelligibility Affected (SIA) shall be eligible to pursue MBBS Courses, provided Speech Intelligibility Affected (SIA) score shall not exceed 3 (three), which is 40% or below. Persons with Aphasia shall be eligible to pursue MBBS Courses, provided Aphasia Quotient (AQ) is 40% or below. | ||||
Proceedings before the High Court:
8. Disappointed but by no means dispirited, the appellant moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in w
AI
Quantified disability alone cannot disqualify candidates from educational opportunities; individual assessments must determine eligibility based on the ability to pursue the course.
Disability quantification should not disqualify candidates from medical education; functional competency must be assessed for eligibility.
The quantified disability alone cannot disqualify a candidate from medical admission; functional assessment and reasonable accommodations are essential for eligibility under the Rights of Persons wit....
The court emphasized that eligibility for medical courses must be based on functional assessments rather than mere disability quantification, reinforcing the principle of reasonable accommodation for....
Reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right for persons with disabilities, and Disability Assessment Boards must prioritize functional competence over mere quantification to ensure equality and i....
The court affirmed that the UDID must be prioritized for disability claims over conflicting assessments, reinforcing the legal right to reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities.
Exclusion from admission despite valid disability certification violates rights and mandates of reasonable accommodation under disability laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of meeting the eligibility criteria, including the condition of both hands being intact with intact sensation, sufficient strength, ....
The court upheld the validity of amended eligibility regulations for medical admissions requiring intact limbs and functional competency, emphasizing adherence to application timelines as lawful and ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
