IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.C. GUPTE, SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.
Anita Prakash Shinde - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
W.P. (St.) No. 539 of 2021
Decided On : 08-02-2021
Denial of Admission - Medical Education - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - [Section 33 of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a person with a 60% left transcarpal amputation disability, challenged the denial of admission to an undergraduate medical course by the respondents. The denial was based on the Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2019, which set eligibility criteria for students with specified disabilities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the regulations, including the requirement for both hands to be intact for eligibility, were valid and proportionate means to achieve the legitimate aim of excellence in medical education. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the denial of admission did not amount to discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues involved the denial of admission to a person with a specified disability to an undergraduate medical course, the constitutionality of the regulations, and the alleged discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the regulations, including the eligibility criteria based on disability ranges and the requirement for intact hands, were valid and proportionate means to achieve excellence in medical education. The court also emphasized that the denial of admission did not amount to discrimination under the relevant laws.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the denial of admission was upheld by the court.
JUDGMENT :
S.C. Gupte, J.
The petition, listed at Sr. No. 52 (HoB), is called at 11.00 a.m.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned AGP for Respondent State and learned Counsel for Respondent No.2-National Medical Commission (formerly known as ‘Medical Council of India’). The subject matter of controversy in the present petition is denial of admission to undergraduate medical course to the petitioner, who is a person with disability. The Petitioner challenges both the executive decision of the Respondents in denying her admission and also the law in this behalf, which is contained in regulations called Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2019.
3. The Petitioner has her left hand amputated. The disability suffered by her is said to be ‘left transcarpal amputation with disability of 60 per cent’. It has been so assessed by the Disability Assessment Board of All India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mumbai. At the Petitioner’s instance, she was again assessed for her disability by Grant Medical College and Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, certifying her disability type as physical disability being locomotor disability and the specified category of disability under the broad sub-head “others”, such as “Amputation, poliomyelitis”. Both certificates declare the Petitioner to be ineligible for medical/dental course.
4. In exercise of powers conferred by section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council of India, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, has made regulations called as Graduate Medical Education Regulations (Amendment), 2019. These regulations amend the original regulations known as “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997”, by substituting Appendix H-1 in place of Appendix H to the original regulations in connection with admission of students with specified disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to MBBS course. The regulations, in the first place, categorize various disabilities into broad heads, such as physical disability, intellectual disability and mental disability. They then describe the various types of disabilities within these three heads, first as broad categories and then specified disabilities within these broad categories and lay down the ranges of such specified disabilities for undertaking the medical course. We are here concerned with the broad sub-head of “locomotor disability”, which includes “specified disabilities” under clauses-a to f. Clause ‘f’ provides for a residual category, described it as ‘others...such as Amputation, Poliomyelitis etc.’. So far as this category is concerned, the regulations add a note to the following effect :
5. So far as the ranges of disability are concerned, the regulations describe three ranges from the point of view of eligibility for undertaking a medical course and applying through PwD quota for admission. The first is less than 40 per cent disability, which makes the candidate eligible for medical course, but not eligible for PwD Quota (person with disability quota). The next range is between 40 to 80 per cent. A candidate within this range is eligible for medical course as well as for applying through PwD quota. The third range is above 80 per cent Diability. This range of disability makes the candidate generally ineligible subject to one exception, such exception being in favour of a person, who, even with more than 80 per cent of disability, may be allowed on a case to case basis, his or her functional competency being determined with the aid of assistive devices so as to see that with such devices, the disability can be brought to the level of below 80 per cent. If it could so be brought to the level below 80 per cent, even such candidate can undertake the medical course through PwD quota. Save for thi
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.