SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Anmol – Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14333 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27632 of 2024)
Decided On : 21-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's disability and admission (Para 1) |
| 2. details of the appellant's disability (Para 2) |
| 3. neet-ug examination results (Para 3) |
| 4. disability assessment board's decision (Para 4) |
| 5. writ petition filed by appellant (Para 5) |
| 6. court's directive to aiims (Para 6 , 7) |
| 7. dr. satendra singh's separate report (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. court's conclusion on admission (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 9. final ruling on appeal (Para 47 , 48) |
JUDGMENT
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 24293 of 2024 (O&M). By a short order, the Division Bench rejected the claim of the appellant, a ‘person with disabilities’ and upheld the denial of his admission to the MBBS Course. This Court, by its order dated 12.12.2024, while granting leave, after considering the report of the Medical Board constituted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), including the separate opinion of Dr. Satendra Singh, a member of the Board, and considering the legal position directed that the appellant should be admitted in the Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan against a seat reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) (OBC). By the order of 12.12.2024, the Court had observed that reasons would be separately recorded. The reasons are being recorded by virtue of the present judgment.
Brief Facts:
2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellant had a distinguished academic record in school and passed his 10th grade and 12th grade examination with flying colours. It is clear from the 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 Phocomalia, 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%.
3. The appellant aspired to be a medical professional. The appellant appeared for the NEET-UG 2024 Examination conducted by the National Testing Agency on 05.05.2024. The results were declared and the appellant obtained rank 2462 in the Persons with Disability (PwD) category. The cut-off obtained by him was far above the cut- off for the OBC-PwD Category. The appellant approached the Government Medical College, Chandigarh (Respondent No. 6) - the designated Disability Certification Centre to get his disability assessed.
4. Without assigning any reason whatsoever and without examining the functional disability and merely being carried away by the quantified disability, the Disability Assessment Board, by its Certificate of 02.09.2024, rendered him ineligible to pursue medical course.
5. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 24293 of 2024 before the High Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the disability certificate and sought a fresh assessment. By the impugned order, the Writ Petition has been dismissed on the ground that the Court cannot substitute the opinion of the experts in the field of disability.
6. When the matter came up before us on 25.11.2024, while issuing notice to the respondents, we passed the following order. The operative portion of which is as follows:
7. The petitioner is dire
Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. Union of India (2019) 10 SCC 20 [Para 26]
Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors.
Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services & Ors.
Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 856 of 2023) [Para 17]
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....
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 court upheld the exclusion of candidates with disabilities from medical admissions based on a lawful assessment of functional eligibility, balancing inclusion with patient safety under the Rights....
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.
The right to reasonable accommodation for PwBD candidates in educational admissions is fundamental; systemic discrimination based on disabilities violates constitutional equal rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.