Mere Existence of Benchmark Disability No Bar for MBBS Admission! Supreme Court tells NMC to revise regulations

New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently held that the mere existence of a benchmark disability of 40% or above will not disqualify a candidate from being eligible for MBBS admission unless a Disability Assessment Board opines that the candidate's disability will come in the way of pursuing the course in question.

Further, the Apex Court bench of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and KV Viswanathan also observed that the Disability Assessment Boards should specify the reasons for holding that a candidate suffering from benchmark disability is not eligible to pursue the course.

The court further said that the National Medical Commission (NMC) regulations uniformly barring candidates with benchmark disabilities from medical education are overbroad and directed the NMC to revise its regulations adopting a more inclusive approach.

"...we are constrained, keeping in mind the salutary object of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, to direct that mere existence of benchmark disability of 40% or above (or such other prescribed percentages depending on the disability) will not disqualify a candidate from being eligible for the course applied for. The Disability Assessment Boards assessing the candidates should positively record whether the disability of the candidate will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question. The Disability Assessment Boards should state reasons in the event of the Disability Assessment Board concluding that candidate is not eligible for pursuing the course," the Apex Court bench observed.

These observations were made by the top court bench while considering the plea of an MBBS aspirant from Maharashtra, who is suffering from more than 40% speech and language disability. 

Also Read: SC relief to MBBS Aspirant with Speech and Language Disability, tells NMC, Centre to be more 'sensitive' towards PwD candidates

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that despite clearing the National Eligibility-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2024 examination, the petitioner was disqualified for MBBS admission based on the percentage of speech and language disability mentioned in the disability certificate for NEET admission.

After examining the petitioner, the Certifying Authority concluded that since the persons having speech and language disability more than 40 percent are not eligible as per the existing rules, the petitioner was ineligible since his disability was to the extent of 44 percent.

Against this ruling, the petitioner had approached the Bombay High Court and challenged the 'Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 1997' framed by the Medical Council of India holding that persons with equal to or more than 40% disability would not be eligible to pursue MBBS course. He argued that the regulations were contrary to the Section 32 of the Right of Persons and Disabilities Act, 2016 and sought a declaration that such regulations were ultra-vires Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), 21 and 29(2) of the Constitution of India.

However, after the Bombay HC bench denied the interim relief, the petitioner approached the Apex Court bench.  Earlier, the Court had directed to set up a medical board by the Dean of Byramhee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College, Pune to examine if the petitioner student would be eligible for admission to MBBS course.

As per the Supreme Court's direction, the Medical Board submitted a report before the Apex Court bench. Based on the positive report given by the Court regarding the candidate's capability to undergo medical education, the Court allowed him to be admitted to MBBS course last month.

Supreme Court's Observations: 

In a detailed 42-page verdict, the Apex Court bench noted that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, which was enacted to give effect to the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities - was with the objective of granting persons with disabilities full and effective participation and inclusion in society, grant them equal opportunity and to show respect for their inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make their own choices.

Referring to the Apex court order in the case of Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., the Court noted that in view of the mandate specified in this judgment, "while interpreting the RPwD Act and the agnate regulations, one must keep in mind the background and purpose for which the law was enacted."

The Court also observed that Disabilities Assessment Boards are not monotonous automation to just look at the quantified benchmark disability as set out in the certificate of disability and cast aside the candidate.

"Such an approach would be antithetical to Article 14 and Article 21 and all canons of justice, equity and good conscience. It will also defeat the salutary objectives of the RPwD Act. The Disabilities Assessment Boards are obliged to examine the further question as to whether the candidate in the opinion of the experts in the field is eligible to pursue the course or in other words, whether the disability will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question," it observed.

Therefore, the bench noted that till appropriate regulations are formed by the National Medical Commission (NMC), the Disability Assessment Boards will keep in the mind the salutary points mentioned in the communication of 25.01.2024 by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, while forming their opinion. 

"Pending creation of the Appellate body, we further direct that such decisions of the Disability Assessment Boards which give a negative opinion for the candidate will be amenable to challenge in judicial review proceedings. The Court seized of the matter in the judicial review proceedings shall refer the case of the candidate to any premier medical institute having the facility for an independent opinion and relief to the candidate will be granted or denied based on the opinion of the said medical institution to which the High Court had referred the matter," it also clarified.

Supreme Court Lauds Achievement of Persons with Disabilities: 

While concluding the judgment, the Apex Court bench recollected that acclaimed Bharatanatyam dancer Sudha Chandran, Arunima Sinha who conquered Mount Everest, prominent sports personality, H. Boniface Prabhu, entrepreneur Srikanth Bolla and Dr. Satendra Singh, the founder of ‘Infinite Ability’, are some of the shining daughters and sons from a long and illustrious list of individuals in India who scaled extraordinary heights braving all adversities.

"The world would have been so much the poorer if Homer, Milton, Mozart, Beethoven, Byron and many more would not have been allowed to realize their full potential. Distinguished Indian Medical Practitioner Dr. Farokh Erach Udwadia in his classic work “The Forgotten Art of Healing and Others Essays’ under the Chapter ‘Art and Medicine’ rightly extolls their extraordinary talent, and of the many more similarly circumstances," it observed.

Court's Order: 

Therefore, granting relief to the petitioner student, the top court bench ordered the following: 

(i) We hold that quantified disability per se will not disentitle a candidate with benchmark disability from being considered for admission to educational institutions. The candidate will be eligible, if the Disability Assessment Board opines that notwithstanding the quantified disability the candidate can pursue the course in question. The NMC regulations in the notification of 13.05.2019 ..should, pending the re-formulation by NMC, be read in the light of the holdings in this judgment.

(ii) The Disability Assessment Boards assessing the candidates should positively record whether the disability of the candidate will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question. The Disability Assessment Boards should state reasons in the event of the Disability Assessment Boards concluding that the candidate is not eligible for pursuing the course.

(iii) The Disability Assessment Boards will, pending formulation of appropriate regulations by the NMC, pursuant to the communication of 25.01.2024 by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, keep in mind the salutary points mentioned in the said communication while forming their opinion.

(iv) Pending creation of the appellate body, we further direct that such decisions of the Disability Assessment Boards which give a negative opinion for the candidate will be amenable to challenge in judicial review proceedings. The Court seized of the matter in the judicial review proceedings shall refer the case of the candidate to any premier medical institute having the facility, for an independent opinion and relief to the candidate will be granted or denied based on the opinion of the said medical institution to which the High Court had referred the matter.

(v) We have already, pursuant to our order dated 18.09.2024, in view of the favorable report dated 13.09.2024 of the Maulana Azad Medical College, granted admission to the appellant. We confirm the admission and direct the concerned authorities to treat the admission as a valid admission in the eye of law. 54. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 is set aside. In view of our directions, Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 24821 of 2024 pending in the High Court of judicature at Bombay will stand disposed of in terms of the holding in the present judgment. No order as to costs.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-benchmark-disability-256992.pdf

Also Read: Are Candidates with more than 40 percent Speech and Language Disability Eligible for MBBS Admissions? Supreme Court Asks Medical Board