NMC's disability guidelines violate SC orders: Doctors move DGHS, seek urgent rectification

Also Read: MBBS: NMC's new PwD guidelines prioritise functional ability over disability percentage, Check details

However, referring to the Interim Guidelines for Admission of PwBD Candidates to the MBBS Course for the Academic Year 2025–26, the association named Doctors with Disabilities: Agents of Change has claimed that even though the ongoing exercice of framing appropriate regulations is being undertaken by the NMC based on the directions of the Supreme Court in various judgments, the recently issued guidelines "appear to be in blatant disregard of the binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these decisions and may amount to wilful disobedience, potentially attracting the invocation of contempt jurisdiction."

Demanding immediate rectification in the newly released interim guidelines, the association further added in the letter, "We respectfully urge your kind self to take immediate corrective action in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the event of continued non-compliance, we shall be constrained to initiate appropriate legal proceedings, including but not limited to invoking the contempt jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court. For ease of reference, we have outlined below a summary of the substantive violations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s directions as evident in the interim guidelines."

In the letter, the association pointed out that the Supreme Court in the case of Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, had observed that the availability of medical boards in the country should be increased and there must be minimum one medical board in each State and UT for proper medical examination of the students who have passed the examination. It had also directed that the larger States/UTs should have a sufficient number of such medical boards to streamline the process.

However, the association pointed out that the list of medical boards notified for the 2025 counselling process comprises only 16 centres, "thereby compelling successful candidates with disabilities to undertake inter-state travel for assessment. This arrangement is logistically unviable, financially onerous, and amounts to discrimination, in clear violation of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court."

Reliance was also placed on the top court order in the case of Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, where the Apex Court had ordered that to enable members of the Disability Assessment Boards (DABs) to effectively apply the functional competency test, they must be adequately trained by professionals and persons with disabilities or those who have worked on disability justice.

Meanwhile, referring to the recently released guidelines, the association mentioned, "Although counselling commenced on 21 July 2025, no training schedule for members of the Disability Assessment Boards (DABs) has been published by the DGHS, in direct contravention of the aforementioned mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, no directive has been issued mandating the inclusion of a doctor with a disability on the medical boards constituted at each of the 16 designated centres. The composition of these boards must be disclosed on the DGHS website to ensure transparency and uphold public trust in the assessment process."

In Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, the Apex Court had held that in case the PwBD wants to challenge any decisions of the medical board, an appellate body at the level of DGHS must be formed.

Further, the Apex Court bench had directed NMC to sensitize all colleges on the reservation criteria for PwBD candidates and their needs. Directions were issued to ensure that information about enabling units and Equal Opportunity Cells must be provided in the MBBS admission booklets, college websites, and Equal Opportunity Policy. Further, the Court had ordered that a database of accessibility and reasonable accommodations must be created and shared and that the Enabling Units should act as nodal points for disability accommodations. 

However, the association pointed out that to date, neither NMC nor the DGHS has constituted he appellate body as directed, thereby denying candidates with disabilities their right to seek redress and acting in defiance of explicit directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The other directions by the Supreme Court remain unimplemented, alleged the association, further adding that the UGC Accessibility Guidelines and Standards for Higher Education Institutions and Universities (2024) also mandate the establishment of Enabling Units, a requirement that has likewise been disregarded.

Highlighting the violations of the Supreme Court's directions, the Doctors with Disabilities: Agents of Change urged the DGHS to take immediate and time-bound corrective action to address these violations in the interim as well as the final guidelines.

They demanded that the number of medical boards should be expanded to ensure the presence of at least one board in each State and Union Territory. Further, the association urged DGHS to issue a public schedule of training sessions for medical board members, along with documentary proof of such training being conducted by doctors with disabilities. It also demanded that the names of doctors with disabilities appointed to the medical boards at all 16 designated centres should be published. 

Apart from these, the association has also requested DGHS to constitute and notify the Appellate Medical Body under the aegis of the DGHS in accordance with judicial directions, and issue binding directions to the National Medical Commission and all medical colleges to operationalise and publicly disclose details of Enabling Units, accessible infrastructure, reasonable accommodations, and the Equal Opportunity Policy on their official websites.

"Non-compliance with binding directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not only legally untenable but also constitutes a violation of the constitutional rights of persons with disabilities. Should these issues remain unaddressed within a reasonable timeframe, it shall remain open to any aggrieved person or body to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court," the association further mentioned in the letter. 

Speaking to Medical Dialogues regarding the recent guidelines, Dr. Satendra Singh, the organisational head of the association, said, "By equating disability with incompetence and turning functional competence into a checklist of physical tasks, the NMC hasn’t just defied the Supreme Court, it has institutionalised discrimination. This isn’t policy; it’s a manifesto for ableism."

Also Read: NMC's 'both hands intact' rule for MBBS, reeks of ableism: Supreme Court