1. Candidate with locomotor disability declared ineligible for MBBS based on benchmark quantification — Challenge to assessment under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 991
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Om Rathod – Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Health Services and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12110 of 2024 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) 21942 of 2024)
Decided On : 25-10-2024
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv. Mr. Taha Bin Tasneem, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Rafid Akhter, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Prannv Dhawan, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv. Mr. Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Gopi Chand, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Mr. Paranjay Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Raj, Adv. Ms. Ankita Dogra, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv. Mr. Taha Bin Tasneem, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Rafid Akhter, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Prannv Dhawan, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv. Mr. Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Gopi Chand, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Mr. Paranjay Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Raj, Adv. Ms. Ankita Dogra, Adv.
Important Points
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 inclusion in medical education.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Disability Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 3, 32, and 2(y) - Reservation in higher educational institutions and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities - Guidelines regarding admission of students with ‘Specified Disabilities’ under Appendix 'H-1' - 'Persons with more than 80% disability may also be allowed on case to case basis and their functional competency will be determined with the aid of assistive devices' (Para 19).
(B) Key Legal Principles: The principle of reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right and a gateway to other rights, ensuring substantive equality for persons with disabilities. Denial of reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination (Para 29). Disability Assessment Boards must focus on functional competence rather than mere quantification of disability, adopting a human rights model over a medical model (Para 53).
(C) Inclusion in Medical Profession: Inclusion of persons with disabilities in healthcare enhances quality and aligns with constitutional values of fraternity and equality under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 (Para 50).
Facts of the case:
The appellant, with an 88% locomotor disability due to lower limb myopathy, secured 601 marks in NEET UG 2024, ranking 84th nationally under the PwD category. Despite academic success, initial assessments by medical boards declared ineligibility for MBBS due to disability percentage, prompting multiple reassessments and legal challenges (Paras 2-3).
Findings of Court:
The court found that initial assessments failed to apply statutory standards of functional competency, focusing instead on disability quantification. A detailed functional assessment later confirmed the appellant’s eligibility with reasonable accommodations (Paras 14-16).
Issues: Whether Disability Assessment Boards should assess functional competence over mere disability quantification, and if the appellant is eligible for MBBS with reasonable accommodations - 'What measures can be taken to ensure that the candidate with disability can start their MBBS course on an equal footing with their prospective classmates?' (Para 40).
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that 'reasonable accommodation is a gateway right' and its denial is discrimination. Boards must assess functional competence using assistive devices, ensuring fairness and transparency, to uphold constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity (Paras 29, 40).
Result: The appeal is allowed. A supernumerary seat shall be created for the appellant at a designated medical college, provided no prior seat allocation, with accommodations as suggested in the functional assessment report (Para 59).
(B) Key Legal Principles: The principle of reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right and a gateway to other rights, ensuring substantive equality for persons with disabilities. Denial of reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination (Para 29). Disability Assessment Boards must focus on functional competence rather than mere quantification of disability, adopting a human rights model over a medical model (Para 53).
(C) Inclusion in Medical Profession: Inclusion of persons with disabilities in healthcare enhances quality and aligns with constitutional values of fraternity and equality under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 (Para 50).
Facts of the case:
The appellant, with an 88% locomotor disability due to lower limb myopathy, secured 601 marks in NEET UG 2024, ranking 84th nationally under the PwD category. Despite academic success, initial assessments by medical boards declared ineligibility for MBBS due to disability percentage, prompting multiple reassessments and legal challenges (Paras 2-3).
Findings of Court:
The court found that initial assessments failed to apply statutory standards of functional competency, focusing instead on disability quantification. A detailed functional assessment later confirmed the appellant’s eligibility with reasonable accommodations (Paras 14-16).
Issues: Whether Disability Assessment Boards should assess functional competence over mere disability quantification, and if the appellant is eligible for MBBS with reasonable accommodations - 'What measures can be taken to ensure that the candidate with disability can start their MBBS course on an equal footing with their prospective classmates?' (Para 40).
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that 'reasonable accommodation is a gateway right' and its denial is discrimination. Boards must assess functional competence using assistive devices, ensuring fairness and transparency, to uphold constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity (Paras 29, 40).
Result: The appeal is allowed. A supernumerary seat shall be created for the appellant at a designated medical college, provided no prior seat allocation, with accommodations as suggested in the functional assessment report (Para 59).
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- statutory law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Appellant sought admission based on functional competence and reasonable accommodation — Respondent contended that assessments must strictly adhere to statutory frameworks and domain expertise. (Para 16 , 21 )
3. Shift from medical model to social model of disability — Emphasis on functional ability over benchmark quantification — Reasonable accommodation as a gateway to substantive equality. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 )
4. Reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right; eligibility for medical courses must be determined by functional competence using assistive devices rather than mere benchmark quantification. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside — Supernumerary seat created for appellant — Directions for fresh guidelines based on functional competence and inclusion of disabled experts in boards. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 )
6. What is the legal status and significance of reasonable accommodation under the RPWD Act and the Constitution?
Reasonable accommodation is a fundamental and gateway right, a facet of substantive equality, and its denial constitutes discrimination. It requires necessary and appropriate modifications, without imposing disproportionate burden, to ensure persons with disabilities enjoy rights equally with others. (Para 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 )
7. How should the eligibility of medical aspirants with disabilities exceeding 80% be assessed?
Assessment must shift from a benchmark model of mere quantification to a functional competence model. This involves evaluating whether the candidate can perform required tasks using assistive devices and reasonable accommodations, focusing on ability rather than limitations. (Para 19 , 23 , 26 , 37 )
8. What are the legal requirements for the conduct and composition of Disability Assessment Boards?
Boards must ensure transparency, fairness, and reasoned decisions. They must include health professionals with disabilities and adopt a human rights model of disability, focusing on functional competence to avoid the over-medicalization of disabled bodies. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 53 , 57 )
9. Does the inclusion of persons with disabilities in the medical profession impact professional standards?
Inclusion enhances healthcare quality by integrating lived experiences into the workforce, fostering empathy, and removing attitudinal barriers. Diversity in the medical profession is vital for a diverse society to ensure the system is humane and sensitive. (Para 49 , 50 )
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.
| Table of Contents | |
| A. | Background |
| B. | Pillar to post: scaling the ramparts of courts and hospitals |
| C. | The maze to inclusion: RPWD Act and guidelines |
| D. | Principle of fair assessment of competence: reasonable accommodation and the functional competence model |
| E. | Building bridges for the nation: principle to practice |
| F. | Conclusions |
The Stage
We didn’t go up to the stage
no one asked us, actually
only by pointing fingers
they showed us our place
and we sat there;
‘great’ they exclaimed.
And they went up on the stage
started narrating us our own sorrows
but, ‘our sorrows remained ours
never became theirs....’
- Waharu Sonavane1 [Poem translated from its original version in Marathi - written in the context of the tribal movement being co-opted by persons who claim to speak on their behalf while simultaneously othering them]
A. Background
1. Legal principles and their application often stand at opposite banks of the river. The distance between them is manifest before us. The appellant has undergone a crash course in navigating the Indian legal system - from statutory prescriptions, regulatory stipulations, High Court adjudication, regulatory and court ordered disability assessments to the race to justice before this Court. Four assessments later - the appellant’s fate now hangs in the balance and this Court is asked to interfere to ensure that the balance does not tilt unfavourably and fall into disarray. Vital foundational questions have been thrown open for debate before this Court. What is expected of an Indian medical graduate? Can a person with disability aspire to meet these expectations? Or is their only option to resign their fate to a society that places a premium on disabled bodies - every step of the way? Academic and practical rigour of the medical profession notwithstanding, should the journey of an Indian to navigate their way into the medical profession be this arduous? Is our collective obsession with disability too strong to focus on a person’s ability? Is our nation ready to benefit from the talent and experiences of persons with disabilities? Or should we continue to sacrifice them at the altar of technicalities?
2. We answer these questions by rooting them in the web of Constitutional law principles, statute, regulatory framework and guidelines which are germane for this case. The bone of contention before us turns on the manner in which the Disability Assessment Boards must function while certifying the eligibility of a candidate for the MBBS course. The appellant has lower limb myopathy - a locomotor disability. The appellant has been an academic success. He secured an A1 grade in his matriculate (Class X) and intermediary (Class XII) examination held by the Central Board of Secondary Education. He aspires, now, to enter the medical profession. With this resolve, the appellant appeared for the NEET UG Examination 2024 on 5 May 2024 under the unreserved/EWS- PwD category and secured 601 marks (out of a total marks of 720). This placed the appellant at an all India PwD rank of 84 and a State PwD rank of 4. Despite having a Disability Certificate dated 24 January 2021 which was to be valid until 2025 - the appellant submitted himself to the mandatory assessment to get his eligibility certified by a designated medical board at AIIMS, Nagpur. Appendix “H-1” of the Guidelines regarding admission of students with ‘Specified Disabilities’ under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with respect to admission in MBBS Course prescribes that persons having over eighty percent disability may be admitted to a medical course on a case by case basis after assessing their functional competence to navigate academic and practical requirements.
3. The medical board at AIIMS, Nagpur comprised of an Associate Professor in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; an Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics; and a Professor who was the Chairman of the Disability Boar
