NEET: Merely Because NMC is revising Disability Guidelines, Fate of MBBS Aspirant Cannot hang in Limbo- Supreme Court
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently held that merely because the disability guidelines are currently being revised by the National Medical Commission (NMC), the fate of medical aspirants cannot hang in limbo.
With this observation, the Apex Court bench granted relief to a medical aspirant who was declared ineligible despite performing "exceedingly well" in the National Eligibility-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) examination.
While considering the aspirant's plea, the top court bench recently directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), to set up a fresh medical board and assess the petitioner's eligibility for medical admission.
Further, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta has specified that the said Medical Board should comprise five doctors/specialists, and one of the Board members should be a specialist in locomotor disabilities and one member should be a Neuro-Physician.
"Denying relief to the petitioner on this premise would be totally unjustified in view of the ratio of this Court’s judgments in Om Rathod (supra) and Anmol (supra). Merely because the NMC is under the process of revising the guidelines, the petitioner’s fate cannot be allowed to hang in a limbo in spite of the fact that he has performed exceedingly well in the NEET (UG) 2024 examination and stood high in the merit in his category," the bench observed.
"In view of the above, we hereby direct that a fresh Medical Board shall be constituted at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi comprising of five Doctors/specialists. One of the Board members shall be a specialist in locomotor disabilities and one member shall be a Neuro-Physician," it further noted.
After conducting a fresh assessment, the Medical Board has been directed to submit its report to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover on or before 15th April 2025. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 16.04.2025.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court rejected his plea. Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the petitioner, a PwD category candidate, was denied MBBS admission due to the opinion of the Medical Board certifying his disability percentage.
After appearing in the NEET UG 2024 exam as an SC0PwD category candidate, the petitioner's disability percentage was recorded at 42% as per his Disability Certificate dated 9th December, 2023, which is a benchmark disability as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
He secured a PwD category rank 176, well above the cut-off score for the SC/EWS-PwD category and became eligible for the next stage in the admission process, which required issuance of a Certificate of Disability for NEET Admissions from a designated Disability Certification Centre.
Accordingly, he approached Vardhman Mahavir Medical College- Safdarjung Hospital, a recognized Disability Certification Centre in New Delhi on 16th August 2024. However, allegedly, despite the VMMC-SJ Hospital quantifying his disability at 68% in the NEET Disability Certificate dated 19.08.2024 i.e. within the permissible disability range of 40% to 80%, the said Hospital concluded that the appellant was not eligible to pursue medical courses.
Challenging this, the appellant approached the Single Judge bench of the High Court, which directed the formation of a Medical Board at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi to independently assess the nature and extent of appellant’s functional disability, as well as to determine whether his condition meets the requirements necessary for being eligible to pursue MBBS course. However, the Medical Board concluded in its report dated 6th September 2024 that the petitioner's disability made him ineligible to pursue the MBBS course. Based on this, the Single Judge dismissed the plea on 10th September 2024.
When the petitioner challenged the order before the Division bench of the Delhi High Court, the bench recently clarified that courts can interfere with the medical opinion of the Medical Disability Board/Disability Assessment Board only when such reports lack clarity regarding detailed reasons.
Consequently, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court bench and petitioner's counsel argued that the Delhi High Court's order and the decisions of both the Medical Boards were inherently flawed as neither the medical authorities nor the High Court duly adverted to the crucial concepts of assistive devices and reasonable accommodation to which the petitioner was entitled, under the Rights of Persons and Disabilities Act, 2016.
The vital factors, i.e., the academic excellence of the petitioner, his performance in the NEET examination, the high placement in merit, were totally glossed over while denying relief to the petitioner, argued the petitioner's counsel.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court order in the case of Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Sciences, where despite the fact that the candidate did not have both hands, he was held entitled to undergo the MBBS course after an assessment was made by Dr. Satendra Singh, a specialist in the field.
Further, the petitioner's counsel also relied on the order in the case of Anmol vs Union of India, where the petitioner was suffering from locomotor disability of 50% with club foot right ower limb and Phocomelia (a congenital defect which causes severe limb shortening or loss of long bones), in left middle ring finger through middle phalanx with right middle index finger through middle phalanx. The candidate also suffered from speech and language disability assessed at 20%.
Relied on these cases, the petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner in this case has much better much better physical/locomotor attributes and is well equipped as compared to the two candidates in the cases of Anmol (supra) and Om Rathod (supra). He also scored much higher marks than these candidates in NEET (UG) examination 2024-2025.
Arguing that the assessment made by the Medical Board and disqualification of the petitioner on the anvil of NMC norms was illegal, the petitioner's counsel urged the court for a direction to conduct a reassessment of the petitioner through Dr. Satendra Singh.
On the other hand, the counsel for Union of India and National Medical Commission (NMC) submitted that NMC was under the process of revising its guidelines in compliance with the judgments in the cases of Om Rathod (supra) and Anmol (supra). Three meetings have already taken place, and the process is expected to be finalised before counselling for the next academic session commences. They thus, urged that the petitioner will not be prejudiced, if the consideration of this matter is deferred till the new guidelines are put in place.
However, at this outset, the Supreme Court bench noted, "Prima facie, we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel representing the respondents that the process for revising the guidelines in terms of this Court’s decisions (supra) is underway and a final outcome is expected before the counselling session for MBBS (UG) 2025-2026 commences. However, we are not inclined to defer the proceedings at this stage."
Observing that the petitioner's fate cannot hang in limbo merely because NMC was revising the guidelines, the Court directed AIIMS to set up a fresh Medical Board and conduct a reassessment of the petitioner.
"The petitioner shall be intimated a suitable date for assessment by the Board within the next seven days. He shall appear before the Board on the appointed date whereupon the Board shall undertake a fresh assessment of the petitioner’s disabilities with due deference to the ratio of this Court’s judgments in Om Rathod (supra) and Anmol (supra). The Board’s report shall be forwarded to this Court in a sealed cover on or before 15th April, 2025," the Court further directed.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/kabir-paharia-vs-national-medical-commission-282296.pdf
