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.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.

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