High Court refuses to strike down MCI regulation on disability

Published On 2016-12-26 15:02 GMT   |   Update On 2016-12-26 15:02 GMT
Advertisement

Court observed that MCI had framed regulations as it had better knowledge of the issue than the court.


Bombay: The Bombay High Court is reported to have dismissed a petition seeking the removal of regulation 9 (1) (a) of the Medical Council of India’s Postgraduate Medical Regulations 2000, which disallows any student from continuing postgraduate studies, if she/he suffers from more than 70 per cent lower body disability. A group of disabled students had filed a bunch of petitions seeking court redress on the issue. Their petition challenged the rule, on the grounds that modern technology equipped them to conduct activities like normal people.
Advertisement

Pooja Thorat, Advocate for the students, while praying for removal of the regulation 9 (1) (a) of the Postgraduate Medical Regulations 2000, defined the rule as ‘discriminatory’ leading to becoming a disadvantage for the medical students.

Sub clause 9(1)(a) reads
3% seats of the annual sanctioned intake capacity shall be filled up by candidates with locomotory disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70%. Provided that in case any seat in this 3% quota remains unfilled on account of unavailability of candidates with locomotory disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70% then any such unfilled seat in this 3% quota shall be filled up by persons with locomotory disability of lower limbs between 40% to 50% – before they are included in the annual sanctioned seats for General Category candidates.

“Many disabled persons are able to undertake normal activities using prosthetic s and hence the MCI rule is unreasonable and in  violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and should be struck down,” pleaded Ms Thorat.

The court however, expressed its inability to take a decision on the ruling, as it deemed the Medical Council of India (MCI),  the appropriate decision maker in this regard, stating it had better knowledge on the issue. The court however, did not disallow the petitioners from going ahead  with their education, as they had invested a couple of years in it already.
Tags:    

Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.

NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News