Disability Assessment Reports should Explain How PwD Candidates Cannot Pursue MBBS course: Supreme Court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has recently stated that disabled candidates should not be excluded from the MBBS course solely based on a quantitative assessment of their disability.
Apart from this, the top court bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar observed that the Disability Assessment Report of such candidates must have cogent reasoning as to how such candidates will be unable to pursue the medical courses.
These observations were made by the Apex Court bench as it expressed its dissatisfaction with the reports submitted by the Medical Board set up by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) assessing the disabilities of two candidates.
Taking note of the reports, the Supreme Court bench observed that the reports primarily focused on quantitatively assessing the extent of disability. The reports did not mention the detailed evaluation and reasoning that is necessary for holding that the candidates were incapable of pursuing medical courses.
Observing this, the Apex Court has issued directions to the Director of AIIMS for issuing a note of clarification and submitting elaborate reasoning within a week.
The Court was considering the pleas filed by four candidates, who under Article 32 of the Constitution sought admission to the MBBS course in the Persons with Disabilities Quota.
As per the latest media report by Live Law, when the Disability Assessment panels under the Medical Board of Admission did not clear them for MBBS admission, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court bench and prayed for the implementation of the reservation for persons with benchmark disability as mandated by the Right to Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
One of the petitioners suffers from locomotor disability. Reservation under Section 32 of the Act is provided to those candidates who suffer from a specific disability of a minimum of 40%. The Civil Hospital, Surat issued a medical certificate to the concerned petitioner and certified that he had a 40% disability and suffered from congential UL deformity.
However, on 27.07.2023, the medical assessment board assessed his disability at 80% and the petitioner was diagnosed with Kyphoscoliosis deformity, webbed neck, right UL significant weakness, right wrist dorsiflexion weakness, and shoulder weakness.
In its appeal, the Medical Board confirmed the findings, and the petitioner was declared not to be eligible to pursue a medical course. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that through a notification in 2019, the National medical Commission had issued a notification providing the disability range and the eligibility.
The petitioner submitted in his plea, “In the case of Locomotor disability, including specified disabilities a candidate within the disability range of 40 % to 80 % may be considered eligible for the medical course as well as eligible for PwD quota, provided both the hands are intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion."
Referring to this, it was argued that the board rejected the petitioner on the basis of a narrowed and exclusionary interpretation of NMC Regulations and is violative of Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Further, the petitioner relied on the order passed in the case of Vibhushita Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.(2023) where the candidate was suffering from a 55% speech and language impairment and the top court bench had ordered the Medical Board at PGI, Chandigarh to conuct a re-examination of the disability of the petitioner and her suitability to pursue the medical course.
The AIIMS panel did not clear the second petitioner as well, who is suffering from cerebral palsy. Besides, in respect of two other candidates, who were having low vision of 40% and 60% respectively, the AIIMS panel clared them to be treated as Persons with Disabilities. However, with the respect to them, the Supreme Court bench issued a directive that counselling authorities must treat these individuals as persons with disabilities and consider their claims for admissions having regard to other factors such as their performance.
Previously, the Court on August 25 had referred to the petitioners for examination by an expert committee set up by AIIMS. The AIIMS Committee cleared two petitioners but did not approve the admission of two others under the PwD quota. Expressing its concern at the negative report of the AIIMS committee, the Supreme Court bench observed,
“This court is of the opinion that these reports only quantitatively assess or evaluate the extent of disability. In both cases, this court notices that the detailed evaluation aside from the quantification of disability is not reflected in reports. Reports are bereft of any reasoning that impelled the experts to say these candidates are not capable of pursuing medical courses. How impediments they suffer would impede or prevent them from pursuing the courses they wish to study? The court is conscious that some of the conditions like webbed neck are not usual or usually understood disabilities, yet in the absence of any elaboration or reasoning, one is left wondering why these candidates who are fairly capable of pursuing rigorous academics and a level of attainment would not be able to do so.”
Apart from this, in order to maintain transparency, fairness, and in the interest of justice, the Apex Court bench directed, “The director of AIIMS ensure a further clarificatory note based on the evaluation conducted by expert committees and elaborate reasoning shall be furnished within a week."
With these observations, the Supreme Court bench ordered to keep two seats earmarked amongst the quota of Persons with Disabilities and shall not be filled till the next day of hearing.
The bench also mentioned that the expert shall also consider the advances including recent developments in medical and other sciences while considering the fact whether such candidates can pursue the courses.
It should be mentioned that recently the Karnataka High Court also clarified that being an expert body, the Medical Board has the authority only to assess and certify the extent of disability, and it cannot draw conclusions about whether or not a candidate would be eligible to pursue a medical course.
While considering a case where the Medical Board declared a candidate with 50% disability as ineligible to pursue medical courses as per the NMC norms, the Karnataka HC division bench comprising Justices G Narendar and Vijaykumar A Patil observed, "Being an expert body it was merely required to assess and certify the extent of disability, in our opinion the conclusion drawn by the board is wholly unsustainable being illegal and as the board is not the selecting authority the eligibility of a candidate cannot be certified by the board. The board is only required to certify the extent of disability and the eligibility of a candidate is in the hands of the competent authority. In our opinion the board has traversed an area beyond its realms, which in our opinion is impermissible."
