SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 446

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Anmol – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14333 of 2024 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27632 of 2024]
Decided On : 21-02-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Atif Inam, AOR Mr. Rishit Vimadalal, Adv. Ms. Shrutika Pandey, Adv. Ms. Karuvaki Mohanty, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, AOR Mr. Alekshendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Mr. Paranjay Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Raj, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv.

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 persons with disabilities.

Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Admission Guidelines under Graduate Medical Education Regulations (Amendment), 2019 - The appellant, a person with disabilities, was denied admission to MBBS despite meeting the cut-off for the OBC-PwD category due to a mechanical interpretation of disability guidelines. The court emphasized the need for functional assessment over mere quantification of disability, rejecting the notion that 'both hands intact' is essential for eligibility. The court directed the National Medical Commission to revise its guidelines to ensure inclusivity and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. (Paras 11, 12, 21, 22, 44)

(B) Reasonable Accommodation - The principle of reasonable accommodation is fundamental for ensuring equal opportunities for persons with disabilities, allowing for individualized assessments rather than blanket disqualifications based on disability percentages. (Paras 40, 41)

(C) Judicial Review - Courts have the jurisdiction to ensure that Disability Assessment Boards comply with legal standards and principles of reasonable accommodation, emphasizing that no individual should be denied educational opportunities based solely on disability. (Paras 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, with a quantified disability of 58%, was denied admission to the MBBS course based on a disability assessment that did not consider functional capabilities. The court found that the assessment was flawed and did not adhere to the principles established in prior judgments.

Findings of Court:
The court accepted the report of Dr. Satendra Singh, which provided a functional assessment and concluded that the appellant could pursue the MBBS course with appropriate accommodations.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the disability assessment, the interpretation of eligibility criteria for medical courses, and the need for reasonable accommodation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mechanical interpretation of disability guidelines was unconstitutional and emphasized the importance of functional assessments in determining eligibility for medical education.

Result: The appeal is allowed, and the admission of the appellant to the MBBS course is confirmed.

Judgement Key Points

Legal Principles from Precedents Relied Upon

On Reasonable Accommodation and Equality: - Reasonable accommodation is a positive obligation under disability rights framework, entailing modifications or adjustments to ensure equal opportunity without imposing disproportionate burden. (!) (!) (!) (!)

On Interpretation of Disability Eligibility Criteria: - Literal or mechanical application of disqualifying criteria (e.g., anatomical requirements) is impermissible if it disregards functional ability and technological aids; assessment must be individualized and competency-oriented. (!) (!) (!) (!)

On Judicial Review of Expert Opinions: - Courts can review expert assessments for unreasoned conclusions or statutory non-compliance; no absolute deference where fundamental rights are implicated. (!)

On Promotion of Inclusion in Education: - Exclusion based on overbroad classifications violates right to education and work opportunities for persons with disabilities. (!) (!) (!) (!)


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:

    “(6) In the meantime, we direct Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi to constitute a Committee to examine as to whether the disability suffered by the petitioner would come in the way of his pursuing medical studies. We request the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi to co-opt Professor Dr. Satendra Singh as a member of the Committee.

    (7) The petitioner is directed to remain personally present before the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi on 27.11.2024 at 10.00 A.M.”

7. Thereafter, on 28.11.2024, the report as directed by us, has been furnished. The report is in two parts. Of the total six members, five of the members, except Dr. Satendra Singh, in their brief report observed as under:

    “This Medical Board after detailed clinical, radiological, speech and functional assessment of the candidate in the Skills Lab, SET Facility of AIIMS, and as per the NMC Guidelines for candidates with disability opines that the candidate has locomotor and speech related disabilities and belongs to the category of persons with multiple disability. The candidate could perform a few b

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top