SC relief to MBBS Aspirant with Speech and Language Disability, tells NMC, Centre to be more 'sensitive' towards PwD candidates
New Delhi: Granting relief to an MBBS aspirant, who has almost 45% speech and language disability, the Supreme Court recently allowed him to be admitted to the undergraduate medical course. The Apex Court's relief comes after a medical board constituted by the Court opined that he could pursue medical education. Therefore, the top court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and KV Viswanathan directed the authorities to admit the candidate to the seat, which was earlier instructed to be kept vacant.
During the hearing of the matter, the top court bench orally stressed the need for a more flexible and directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) and Union Government to opt for a more sensitive approach towards allowing medical admission to persons with disabilities.
Approaching the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the order of the Bombay High Court, which had earlier denied him interim relief against the cancellation of his MBBS admission.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported the petitioner, who is suffering from more than 40% speech and language disability, was disqualified for MBBS admission based on the percentage of speech and language disability mentioned in the disability certificate for NEET admission, dated 16th August 2024.
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.
The Supreme Court bench, while considering the plea, had issued directions for setting up a medical board by the Dean, Byramhee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College, Pune to examine if the petitioner student would be eligible for MBBS admission. The Dean of. BJGMC was asked to submit a report before the Court by 7th September, 2024.
Earlier, the petitioner had approached the Bombay High Court and challenged the Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 1997 framed by the erstwhile Medical Council of India. As per GMER 1997, 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.
The petitioner submitted before the bench that his admission was cancelled because he suffered from speech and language impairment of 44-45%. He further submitted that he did not suffer from any 'functional infirmities or disqualifications' which would cause obstacles in completing his education. It was further submitted by the petitioner that the results of the Centralized Admission Process (CAP) Round 1 would be declared on August 30, while the High Court has inconsiderably adjourned the matter to September 19.
As per the Supreme Court's direction, the Medical Board submitted a report before the Apex Court bench. Live Law has reported that 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 the MBBS course.
"For the reasons to be recorded separately, the appeal is allowed...The appellant is directed to be admitted against the seat, which was directed to be kept vacant as per the orders passed by this Court," ordered the Apex Court bench.
Meanwhile, during the hearing of the matter, the bench expressed concerns regarding the stringent and outdated categorisation of disabilities that govern medical admissions and issued directions to the authorities to consider such cases with greater sensitivity, Hindustan Times has reported.
"You should be more sensitive towards these issues. If they are capable of pursuing the course, they should not be forced to approach this court," the bench observed, adding that the authorities should not rely on strict cut-off criteria to bar eligible candidates from pursuing their dreams.
Addressing the counsel for the National Medical Commission (NMC) and the Union Government, the bench opined that denying admissions to disabled candidates based on inflexible regulations may not stand the test of constitutionality and justness.
In this regard, Justice Viswanathan referred to a similar case that involved a candidate who was barred from medical school due to colour-blindness. In this regard also, the Court had overruled the rigid rules and allowed the candidate to pursue medical education.
"...all the senior doctors on the panel determining whether colour-blindness should be an absolute bar were very considerate and accommodative. You have to be more sensitive," observed Justice Viswanathan as he recounted his role as amicus curiae in that case when he was practising as a senior advocate.
In response, the counsel for NMC, Advocate Sharma informed the Court that the Commission follows the rules set by the Health Ministry. He further added that there is a conflict between the ministries of health and social justice and pointed out that while social justice ministry often supports disabled candidates, health ministry tends to impose stricter rules. "Let the two ministries talk and come up with a solution in the larger interest of the candidates," Advocate Sharma suggested.
Thereafter, the bench asked the counsel for Union Government to address this issue, coordinate between the two ministries and consider creating regulations that better serve the interests of disabled candidates.
To view the order, click on the link below:
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.