Can candidates with speech and language benchmark disability seek MBBS admission? SC issues notice to NMC
New Delhi: While considering a plea challenging the 2019 Amendment to Graduate Medical Education Regulations 1997 that barred the candidates with speech and language benchmark disability (quantified at 40% or above) from availing reservation and get admitted to MBBS courses, the Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the National Medical Commission (NMC).
The counsel for NMC, the Apex medical body has been directed by the top court bench comprising of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli to reply in this regard within four weeks.
Filed by an MBBS aspirant who had been denied a seat in a medical college in Karnal due to his speech and language disability. The plea prays before the bench for invoking jurisdiction under Article 142 and allow her to pursue MBBS course in the allocated seat under reserved seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.
In her plea, the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Agarwal informed the bench that the concerned regulation takes away the statutory right of a person with benchmark disability by barring her from pursuing MBBS course.
According to the regulations, a person with disability quantified at 39% or below is eligible for availing reservation. However, for those having disability quantified at 40% or more than that, there is neither any provision for reservation nor for taking admission.
Assailing the blanker ban for being disproportionate, the plea contends that the notification is derogatory to the rights of persons with disability contemplated in Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as well as mandates under the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2007. Besides, the petitioner also claimed that the determining a cut-off for disability without any scientific basis is arbitrary, and discriminatory.
As per the latest media report by Live Law, the petitioner was diagnosed with a permanent disability of 'Cleft Lip Palate Repair', a speech and language disability, quantified at 55%. The plea submits that while 50% of the time people can understand what the petitioner is saying, 50% of the time they might not be able to do it. However, it can be cured with the use of computer softwares.
The daily adds that the Right to Person with Disabilities Act, 2016 came into force on 19.04.2017 and thereafter experts submitted a report to the erstwhile Medical Council of India (now NMC) regarding the formulation of guidelines for admission of person with specified disabilities. While the report opined that persons with 40% or above speech and language disability are ineligible for MBBS admission, the 2019 amendment to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 confirmed that rule.
After getting her disability certificate on 26.10.2021, the petitioner appeared for NEET UG 2021 and was allocated a seat at Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College, Karnal, Haryana. However, she was declared ineligible for admission after a disability certificate issued on 14.03.2022 declared her to be a person with benchmark disability.
Although re-verification had been conducted, the disability status of the petitioner remained the same. Following this, she approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court and prayed for relief. She also made representations before concerned authorities. In fact the HC bench had also directed the authorities for considering her case. Despite all these efforts, the authorities only re-affirmed her ineligibility status.
Approaching the Supreme Court bench, the counsel for the petitioner also referred to the fact that the petitioner was denied her right for pursuing MBBS course only because her disability is quantified at more than 40%. The petitioner's counsel also pointed out that the petitioner does not suffer from any intellectual or physical disability.
Seeking relief, the plea also relied upon the top court judgment in the case of Vikas Kumar v. UPSC and contended in favour of 'reasonable accommodation' to persons with disability. Reliance was also placed upon the doctrines of Progressive Realisation of Rights and Non-retrogression as mentioned in the judgement in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.
Taking note of the fact that the MBBS admission of the petitioner to the medical college in Karnal got cancelled, the top court bench observed that the petitioner should have approached the Supreme Court earlier. In that case, the court could have protected her admission by invoking jurisdiction under Article 142.
"You should have come here. We would have passed an order under A. 142 and protected her. Poor Girl lost her admission. I was very disturbed when I read the petition," observed the bench.
