Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J., TEJAS KARIA
Sahil Arsh – Appellant
Versus
National Medical Commission – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical marginalization of persons with disabilities (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's denial of reasonable accommodation (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. challenge to regulation 18 for being arbitrary (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. regulatory scrutiny on migration ban (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. respondent's justification for migration ban (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. criteria for judicial review of subordinate legislation (Para 22 , 23 , 26) |
| 7. manifest unreasonableness of the migration ban (Para 36 , 39 , 48) |
| 8. court's ruling on the invalidity of regulation 18 (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.
PRELUDE
1. Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter referred to as ‘PwD’) have historically faced marginalisation and exclusion, and have often been denied their fundamental rights and dignity. Despite laws and Government policies aimed at promoting inclusivity and reasonable accommodation being in place, many continue to experience social, economic and cultural barriers that hinder their full participation and growth in the society. Denial of rights and reasonable accommodation for PwD not only affect individuals but also undermines the principles of equality and justice.
1.1 Facts of t
The court declared the blanket ban on migration for medical students with disabilities unreasonable and unconstitutional, emphasizing the individual's rights under the PwD Act, thus mandating reasona....
Compliance with MCI regulations, including the eligibility criteria for migration, is essential for seeking transfer in medical education.
Migration of medical students is not a right, but a discretionary decision of authorities based on existing regulations, and there is no legitimate expectation to claim migration under new regulation....
Quantified disability alone cannot disqualify candidates from educational opportunities; individual assessments must determine eligibility based on the ability to pursue the course.
The restriction imposed by the 2016 Rules on the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) is reasonable and thus saved by clause (6) of Article 19.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of meeting the eligibility criteria, including the condition of both hands being intact with intact sensation, sufficient strength, ....
A person with benchmark disability cannot be denied admission in medical courses if they qualify according to merit and applicable reservation provisions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
