In a groundbreaking verdict that reaffirms the rights of persons with disabilities (PwD), the Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of Anmol, a determined aspirant with a 58% disability, allowing him to pursue an MBBS degree.
Anmol, a bright and ambitious student, had always dreamt of becoming a doctor. Despite his locomotor disability affecting his limbs and a speech impairment, he performed exceptionally well in the NEET-UG 2024 examination, securing an impressive rank of 2462 in the PwD category. However, his journey hit a roadblock when the Disability Assessment Board at Chandigarh deemed him ineligible for MBBS admission.
Their rationale? The rigid guidelines of the National Medical Commission (NMC) requiring candidates to have "both hands intact."
Undeterred, Anmol took the legal route. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, unfortunately, upheld the Assessment Board's decision, stating it could not override the opinions of medical experts. But Anmol refused to give up and took his fight to the Supreme Court, where justice was finally served. Justice K.V. Viswanathan, delivering the landmark ruling, overturned the High Court’s decision and directed Anmol’s admission to the Government Medical College in Sirohi, Rajasthan.
The judgment was influenced by a crucial reassessment at AIIMS, where Dr. Satendra Singh—a staunch advocate for disability rights—offered a compelling report demonstrating that Anmol could complete the MBBS course with appropriate accommodations and assistive technologies.
The ruling underscored the fundamental principles of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), emphasizing the need for reasonable accommodations rather than outright exclusions. Court declared that reasonable accommodation is not a privilege but a fundamental right under the Constitution. Educational institutions must take proactive steps to ensure equal opportunities for PwD candidates instead of relying on rigid exclusionary criteria.
The Court criticized the existing NMC guidelines as overly restrictive, especially the arbitrary requirement of "both hands intact." Instead, the judgment called for a functional assessment approach—evaluating candidates based on their ability to perform medical tasks with the aid of modern assistive technologies.
21. In our view, this prescription of “both hands intact…” is
completely antithetical to Article 41 of the Constitution; the principles
enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities and the salutary provisions of the RPwD Act. It also
indicates a classification which is overbroad and glorifies ‘ableism’. It
propagates that persons with typical abilities and with faculties similar
to what the majority may have or somehow superior.
The ruling highlighted that Disability Assessment Boards must go beyond merely calculating percentages of disability. They should provide detailed justifications for their decisions and focus on how a candidate can be accommodated instead of why they should be excluded.
Acknowledging the outdated nature of the NMC’s 2019 regulations, the Court directed the Commission to form a new expert committee—including disability rights advocates—to draft more inclusive guidelines aligned with technological advancements and modern educational practices.
This verdict is a monumental step in dismantling the ableist biases embedded in India’s educational and professional institutions. It underscores the importance of inclusive education, where the emphasis is on creating opportunities rather than imposing barriers.
By advocating for functional assessments over rigid, outdated eligibility criteria, the judgment paves the way for an education system that empowers individuals with disabilities rather than excluding them.
We direct this matter to be posted on 03.03.2025 to consider
whether the National Medical Commission has formulated the revised
guidelines in accordance with the judgments of this Court, as directed
in Omkar Ramchandra Gond (supra) and Om Rathod (supra) and
further direct that the NMC shall file an affidavit explaining the
current status before the said hearing date
Anmol’s story is a beacon of hope for countless individuals with disabilities who aspire to break barriers and chase their dreams. This Supreme Court judgment is not just a legal win—it is a call to action for policymakers, institutions, and society at large to embrace inclusion, rethink outdated norms, and champion the cause of disability rights.
Key Case Laws:
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860
Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 370
Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 856 of 2023)
Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130
Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. Union of India, (2019) 10 SCC 20
Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures
Comments