1. Denial of admission to MBBS UG course for a person with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) despite high merit in the reserved category — challenge to medical ineligibility. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 769
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Kabir Paharia – Appellant
Versus
National Medical Commission and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 5836 of 2025, (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No (s). 29275 of 2024)
Decided On : 02-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Adv. (Not Present) Mr. Taha Bin Tasneem, Adv. Mr. Amar Jain, Adv. Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Dixit, Adv. Mr. Aditya Manubarwala, Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Mr. Paranjay Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Raj, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Adv. (Not Present) Mr. Taha Bin Tasneem, Adv. Mr. Amar Jain, Adv. Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Dixit, Adv. Mr. Aditya Manubarwala, Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Mr. Paranjay Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Raj, Adv.
Important Points
The right to reasonable accommodation for PwBD candidates in educational admissions is fundamental; systemic discrimination based on disabilities violates constitutional equal rights.
Subject
Administrative Law - Education Law
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.21, Art.41
Headnote
(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India - Issues concerning admission of a Scheduled Caste PwBD candidate in MBBS course - Appellant was denied admission despite high merit rank due to benchmark disabilities - Court mandates a fresh assessment of disabilities, upholding the right to equal opportunity and emphasizing that reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right. (Paras 9, 15, 17)
(B) Discrimination - Systemic exclusion of PwBD candidates is unconstitutional and violates fundamental rights; institutional bias must be eliminated in educational admissions. (Paras 9, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed admission to MBBS under the SC/PwBD category after scoring 542 marks in NEET, faced rejection on the basis of disability assessment, which was contested in the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The denial of admission was found grossly illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional rights, thus directing reassessment and subsequent admission.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of disability assessments, the role of reasonable accommodation, and systemic discrimination against PwBD candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the previous assessments were flawed, emphasizing that reasonable accommodations should allow physically disabled individuals to pursue medical education if they meet academic requirements.
Result: Appeal allowed; the case was remanded for admission into the MBBS course according to the judgment.
(B) Discrimination - Systemic exclusion of PwBD candidates is unconstitutional and violates fundamental rights; institutional bias must be eliminated in educational admissions. (Paras 9, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed admission to MBBS under the SC/PwBD category after scoring 542 marks in NEET, faced rejection on the basis of disability assessment, which was contested in the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The denial of admission was found grossly illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional rights, thus directing reassessment and subsequent admission.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of disability assessments, the role of reasonable accommodation, and systemic discrimination against PwBD candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the previous assessments were flawed, emphasizing that reasonable accommodations should allow physically disabled individuals to pursue medical education if they meet academic requirements.
Result: Appeal allowed; the case was remanded for admission into the MBBS course according to the judgment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the medical boards and High Court failed to consider assistive devices and reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. (Para 4 )
3. Trivial functional difficulties cannot justify denying admission to a candidate who demonstrates overall competence in medical skills and possesses high academic merit. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 )
4. Reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 16, and 21, necessitating individualized, evidence-based assessments over exclusionary stereotypical assumptions. (Para 9 , 15 )
5. Appeal allowed; seat allocated in MBBS UG 2025 course under SC-PwBD quota at AIIMS New Delhi without requiring a fresh NEET examination. (Para 12 , 13 , 17 , 18 )
6. What is the legal status of reasonable accommodation for persons with benchmark disabilities in professional education?
Reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, requiring the State to take affirmative measures to ensure meaningful participation. (Para 9 , 15 )
7. How should the capability of a PwBD candidate to pursue a medical course be assessed?
Assessments must be individualized and evidence-based, focusing on functional adaptation and the use of assistive devices, rather than relying on stereotypical assumptions or rigid, exclusionary norms. (Para 9 , 15 )
8. Can minor functional challenges, such as difficulty with sterilized gloves, justify denying admission to a medical course?
No, trivial aberrations that do not hinder the overall ability to perform essential medical skills cannot be grounds for denying admission to an otherwise qualified and high-merit candidate. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant being a person with benchmark disabilities (for short ‘PwBD’) belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste and aspires for admission to the MBBS UG (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery) course. Having been denied admission to the MBBS course, despite standing high in merit in his category i.e., Scheduled Castes-PwBD quota, the appellant approached the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1[ Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court.’] by filing a Writ Petition (C) No. 12165 of 2024, which came to be rejected vide order dated 10th September, 2024. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 967 of 2024, preferred by the appellant, also stands rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 12th November, 2024, which is assailed in this appeal by special leave.
4. The facts in brief, essential for disposal of the present matter, can be gathered from the detailed order dated 2nd April, 2025 passed by this Court, which is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“2. The petitioner passed Secondary School Examination/Class Xth in 2022 with 91.5% marks and class XIIth exams with 90% marks. He appeared for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (for short “NEET”) UG 2024 Examinations in the category of SC/PwBD candidate. The deformities suffered by the petitioner in his body are as below:-
“congenital absence of multiple fingers in both hands as well as involvement of left foot (2nd and 3rd toe), the extent whereof has been assessed at 42%.”
3. Despite the structural disadvantages referred to above, the petitioner performed exceedingly well in the examination scoring 542 marks and secured a category rank of 176. It may be stated that the cut- off marks for these subcategories were 143-127. Having made the cut-off for the SC/PwBD category with flying colours, the petitioner staked his rightful claim for the next stage which requires the issuance of a Certificate of Disability for NEET Admissions (“NEET Disability Certificate”) by a designated ‘Disability Certification Centre’. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Vardhman Mahavir Medical College-Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi (for short “VMMC-SJ Hospital”) for medical assessment. Even though, the VMMC-SJ Hospital assessed the petitioner’s disability at 68%, it concluded that under the NMC/MCI guidelines, the petitioner was not entitled to pursue the medical courses. The conclusions drawn by the certifying body in the certificate dated 19th August, 2024, are reproduced below for ready reference:-
“Conclusion: Based on quantification of disability The candidate is not eligible to pursue medical courses (as per NMC norms).
Remark: BILATERAL UPEER (sic) LIMB INVOLVEMENT
The Disability Certification Board certifies that the candidate is not eligible for admission in Medical/Dental courses and to avail 5% PwD reservation as per the NMC/MCI Gazette Notification.”
4. Aggrieved by his disqualification from admission in the MBBS course on the ground of benchmark disabilities, despite standing high in merit, the petitioner approached the High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12165 of 2024.
5. The learned Single Bench of the High Court directed the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi to constitute a Board of three experts to reassess the petitioner’s disabilities and to give an opinion as to whether the petitioner would be able to pursue medical courses and perform as a Doctor. In compliance, the petitioner was subjected to reassessment by the Medical Board constituted at AIIMS, New Delhi and the report was submitted to the learned Single Judge, who upon perusal thereof, concluded that the petitioner was ineligible to pursue medical courses. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 10th September, 2024.
6. The petitioner assailed the decision of the learned Single Judge by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 967 of 2024. The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi passed an order dated 27t
