Supreme Court of India
OMKAR RAMCHANDRA GONDversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 775
- Decided
- 15 October 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A quantified disability of 40% or more does not per se disqualify a benchmark‑disabled candidate from MBBS admission; eligibility depends on the Disability Assessment Board’s assessment of functional capability.
Summary
The appellant, a candidate with a 44%/45% speech and language disability, qualified the NEET‑UG 2024 and applied for MBBS admission under the PwD quota. The Designated Disability Certification Centre declared him ineligible based on Appendix H‑1 of the 2019 MCI/NMC regulations, which barred persons with 40% or more disability in this category. The appellant challenged the disqualification, arguing that the RPwD Act and constitutional principles require a purposive interpretation and reasonable accommodation. The Supreme Court held that a quantified disability alone does not disqualify a benchmark‑disabled candidate; the Disability Assessment Board must assess whether the disability actually impedes course pursuit. After a medical board found the appellant fit, the Court directed his admission and set guidelines for future assessments, emphasizing the need for reasonable accommodation and judicial review of negative board decisions. The appeal was allowed, confirming the appellant’s admission.
Issues considered
- Whether a candidate with a benchmark disability of 40% or more in speech and language is automatically disqualified from MBBS admission under the PwD quota.
- Whether Appendix H‑1 of the 2019 MCI/NMC regulations can be interpreted to bar such candidates irrespective of individual functional assessment.
- Whether the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional provisions require a purposive interpretation and reasonable accommodation in admission decisions.
- Whether decisions of Disability Assessment Boards denying admission are amenable to judicial review.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 21, s. Article 41
- Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016s. 15, s. 2(m), s. 2(r), s. 2(y), s. 3, s. 32
Subjects
MBBS admissionPersons with DisabilitiesRight to educationReasonable accommodationDisability Assessment BoardEqualityArticle 14Article 41NMC regulationsAppendix H-1Benchmark disabilityReservationJudicial review
Judgment
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 673 : 2024 INSC 775
Omkar Ramchandra Gond
v.
The Union of India & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 2024)
15 October 2024
[B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant should be disqualified from obtaining
admission under the PwD category for the MBBS Course merely
because his disability is quantified at 44% /45%.
Headnotes†
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – MBBS
course – Admission for academic year 2024-25 – PwD
category – Appellant has speech and language disability and
is diagnosed with Hypernasality with Misarticulation IN K/C/O
Repaired Bilateral CLEFT of palate – Appellant appeared for
the NEET (UG) 2024 and qualified the same – As required,
appellant underwent medical examination – The Designated
Disability Certification Centre certified that the appellant has
physical disability of speech and language of 44% (in some
reports, it was mentioned as 45%) and recorded that based
on quantification of disability, the appellant was not eligible
to pursue the medical course as per NMC norms – Propriety:
Held: The Appendix H-I in the notification of 13.05.2019, issued by
the Medical Council of India provides a peculiar scenario – While
people with less than 40% disability are not eligible for PwD quota,
though they can pursue the Medical Course, persons with equal
to or more than 40% disability are not eligible for the medical
course – In any event, adopting a purposive interpretation of the
RPwD Act, this Court is of the opinion that merely because of the
quantification of the disability for speech and language at 40% or
above, a candidate does not forfeit his right to stake a claim for
admission to course of their choice – Appendix H-1 cannot be
interpreted to mean that merely because on the quantification of
the disability percentage exceeding the prescribed limits, a person
* Author
674 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
automatically becomes ineligible for the medical course – The
concept of reasonable accommodation would encompass within
itself the deployment of a purposive and meaningful construction
of the NMC Regulations of 13.05.2019 read with the Appendix H-1
guidelines in a manner as to further the objectives of the RPwD
Act – While interpreting the Regulations and Guidelines, as provided
in Appendix H-1 to the notification dated 13.05.2019, as they
stood for the academic year 2024-25, keeping in mind the salutary
object of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of the Directive Principles
of State Policy, it is directed that mere existence of benchmark
disability of 40% or above (or such other prescribed percentages
depending on the disability) will not disqualify a candidate from
being eligible for the course applied for – The Disability Assessment
Boards assessing the candidates should positively record whether
the disability of the candidate will or will not come in the way of
the candidate pursuing the course in question – The directions
of this Court in Bambhaniya case was carried forward and the
Government of India through the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment issued a communication dated 25.01.2024 to the
National Medical Commission – The Disability Assessment Boards
will, pending formulation of appropriate Regulations by the NMC,
pursuant to the communication of 25.01.2024 by the Ministry
of Social Justice and Empowerment, keep in mind the salutary
points mentioned in the said communication while forming their
opinion – In the instant case, pursuance to the order of this Court,
a report dated 13.09.2024 was prepared and the Medical Board
has opined that the Appellant’s speech and language disability
would not come in the way of the appellant pursuing the MBBS
Course – Therefore, in view of the favorable report, admission is
granted to the appellant – The admission of appellant is confirmed
and the concerned authorities are directed to treat the admission as
a valid admission in the eye of law. [Paras 12, 20, 21, 23, 48, 53(v)]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – MBBS course –
Admission for academic year 2024-25 – PwD category –
Whether quantified disability per se will disentitle a candidate
with benchmark disability from being considered for admission
to educational institutions:
Held: The quantified disability per se will not disentitle a candidate
with benchmark disability from being considered for admission
to educational institutions – The candidate will be eligible, if
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 675
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
the Disability Assessment Board opines that notwithstanding
the quantified disability the candidate can pursue the course in
question. [Para 53(i)]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – MBBS course –
Admission for academic year 2024-25 – PwD category –
Disability Assessment Boards:
Held: The Disability Assessment Boards assessing the candidates
should positively record whether the disability of the candidate
will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the
course in question – The Disability Assessment Boards should
state reasons in the event of the Disability Assessment Boards
concluding that the candidate is not eligible for pursuing the
course – The Disability Assessment Boards will, pending
formulation of appropriate regulations by the NMC, pursuant
to the communication of 25.01.2024 by the Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment, keep in mind the salutary points
mentioned in the said communication while forming their opinion.
[Paras 53(ii), 53(iii)]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – MBBS course –
Admission for academic year 2024-25 – PwD category –
Disability Assessment Boards – Negative opinion for the
candidate – Judicial review:
Held: Pending creation of the appellate body, it is directed that
decisions of the Disability Assessment Boards which give a negative
opinion for the candidate will be amenable to challenge in judicial
review proceedings – The Court seized of the matter in the judicial
review proceedings shall refer the case of the candidate to any
premier medical institute having the facility, for an independent
opinion and relief to the candidate will be granted or denied based
on the opinion of the said medical institution to which the High
Court had referred the matter. [Para 53(iv)]
Case Law Cited
Khandige Sham Bhat and Anr. v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer,
Kasaragod, and Anr. [1963] 3 SCR 809 : AIR 1963 SC 591;
Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2021]
4 SCR 633 : (2021) 15 SCC 125; Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal &
Anr. v. Union of India and Others [2021] 13 SCR 823 : (2023) 2
SCC 209; Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India &
676 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 856 of 2023 in the Supreme Court;
Vikash Kumar v. UPSC & Others [2021] 12 SCR 311 : (2021) 5
SCC 370; Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2016] 4
SCR 638 : (2016) 7 SCC 761; U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, U.P. v.
Braj Kishore and Others [1988] Supp. 2 SCR 859 : (1988) 4 SCC
274; Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency, (NTA) and Others
[2021] 11 SCR 891 : (2023) 2 SCC 286 – relied on.
Vibhushita Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C)No.
793 of 2022; State of Gujarat and Another v. Ambica Mills Ltd.,
Ahmedabad and Another [1974] 3 SCR 760: (1974) 4 SCC 656;
Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Others [2020]
3 SCR 833 : (2020) 7 SCC 469 – referred to.
List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation), Act 1995; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
MBBS course; Admission for academic year 2024-25; PwD
category; Medical examination; Designated Disability Certification
Centre; Physical disability of speech and language; Quantification
of disability; Purposive interpretation; Concept of reasonable
accommodation; Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State
Policy; Disability Assessment Boards; Judicial review.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WPST No. 24821 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
S B Talekar, Ms. Pradnya Talekar, Pulkit Agarwal, Sudhanshu
Kaushesh, Vibhu Tandon, Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan, Ajinkya Sanjay
Kale, Shreyans Raniwala, Avnish Chaturvedi, Anubhav Lamba, Mohd
Anas Chaudhary, Advs. for the Appellant.
Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 677
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Omkar Ramchandra Gond (the appellant) grew up in a middle- class
family in the city of Latur in Maharashtra State. His father is a
government servant. The appellant had a creditable academic
performance in his tenth standard scoring 97.2%. He cleared his
school final in the first division. The appellant aspired to be a doctor.
Nothing wrong with it, except that he had to surmount a few legal
hurdles enroute.
2. Admittedly, the appellant has speech and language disability and is
diagnosed with Hypernasality with Misarticulation IN K/C/O Repaired
Bilateral CLEFT of palate. The appellant is certified to have 45%
(in some reports, it was mentioned as 44%) permanent disability as
per the Disability Certificate dated 18.05.2017.
3. The appellant applied for the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test
NEET (UG), 2024 for admission to MBBS Course from the category
of Persons with Disability (for short “PwD”) and Other Backward
Classes (OBC) on 18.02.2024.
4. The application form had a disclaimer clause which stated that
the eligibility under the PwD Category was purely provisional and
was to be governed as per the National Medical Commission
(NMC) guidelines regarding admission of students with “specified
disabilities” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
(for short “RPwD Act”).
5. The appellant appeared for the NEET (UG) held on 05.05.2024 and
qualified the entrance examination. The Schedule for Centralized
Admission Process (CAP) Round-I counseling for admission was
notified on 20.08.2024. The appellant applied for the centralized
admission process and claimed reservation under the OBC and the
PwD category. In the provisional merit list published on 26.08.2024,
the name of the appellant figured at 42091. Under the Information
brochure, candidates with disability have to submit a disability
certificate issued for the year 2024 and have to undergo medical
examination at the Disability Assessment Board.
678 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6. The appellant approached the Designated Disability Certification
Centre at Sir JJ Group of Hospitals on 16.08.2024. The Certification
Centre certified that the appellant has physical disability of speech
and language of 44% (in some reports, it was mentioned as 45%)
and recorded that based on quantification of disability, the appellant
was not eligible to pursue the medical course as per NMC norms. In
view of that, the appellant was rendered ineligible person to obtain
PwD reservation or to pursue medical course as per the NMC
Gazette notification.
7. The Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India, the previous
avatar of the NMC, had amended the Graduate Medical Education
Regulations, 1997, vide notification dated 13.05.2019. The existing
Appendix “H” was substituted with Appendix “H-1” providing for
guidelines regarding admission to students with “specified disabilities”
under the RPwD Act with respect to admission in MBBS course. As
per clause 1(D) thereof, persons who have equal to or more than
40% disability were not eligible for Medical Course. The relevant
clause of the schedule is extracted hereinbelow:-
Type of Disability Range
Disabilities
Eligible for Eligible for Not Eligible
Medical Medical for Medical
Course, Not Course, Course
Specified Eligible for Eligible for
Disability PwD Quota PwD Quota
D. Speech Organic/ Less than Equal to or
& language neurological 40% Disability more than
disability$ causes 40% Disability
$ Persons with Speech Intelligibility Affected (SIA) shall be eligible to
pursue MBBS Courses, provided Speech Intelligibility Affected (SIA)
score shall not exceed 3 (three), which is 40% or below.
Persons with Aphasia shall be eligible to pursue MBBS Courses,
provided Aphasia Quotient (AQ) is 40% or below.
Proceedings before the High Court:
8. Disappointed but by no means dispirited, the appellant moved
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in writ petition being W.P.
Stamp No. 24821 of 2024 contending that the Medical Council of
India/NMC is not empowered to lay down eligibility criteria in such
a manner as to altogether take away the benefits under the RPwD
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 679
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
Act. Challenging the notification dated 13.05.2019 as well as the
certificate issued by the Disability Certification Centre rendering
him ineligible for pursuing the MBBS Course only on the ground of
disability exceeding 40% without anything more, the appellant also
sought interim relief permitting him to participate in the centralized
admission process in admission to MBBS Course without considering
the certificate issued by the Disability Certification Centre - Sir J.J.
Group of Hospitals, Mumbai pending final disposal of the writ petition.
9. The appellant contended that there is nothing which would show he
is not competent to pursue the course. The appellant also alleged
discrimination. By the order of 29.08.2024, the High Court simply stood
over the matter to 19.09.2024 and did not pass any interim order.
10. Running against time as the last date for submitting the choice for
admission was 29.08.2024 and since the results of the CAP Round-I
were to be declared on 30.08.2024, the appellant with great alacrity
moved this Court seeking urgent reliefs.
Interim order by this Court:
11. When the matter came up on 02.09.2024, this Court, after hearing
the counsel for the NMC, passed an order directing that the seat
which the appellant would have been entitled, if rendered eligible, be
kept vacant. This Court also directed the Dean, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy
Government Medical College and Sassoon General Hospital, Pune
to constitute a Medical Board consisting of one or more specialists,
having domain expertise pertaining to the appellant’s disability. The
Medical Board was to specifically examine whether the speech
and language disability of the appellant would come in his way of
pursuing the MBBS Degree Course. This course of action was
previously adopted in another case with similar facts in Writ
Petition (C) No. 793 of 2022 (Vibhushita Sharma vs. Union of
India & Ors).
Opinion of the Medical Board:
12. Ultimately, since the B.J Government Medical College did not have
the facility, the task was entrusted to Maulana Azad Medical College,
Government of NCT of Delhi. The report has since been received
and the Medical Board has opined that the Appellant’s speech and
language disability would not come in the way of the appellant
pursuing the MBBS Course, which is extracted hereinbelow:-
680 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“As directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the
medical examination of the petitioner, namely, Sh. Gond
Omkar Ramchandra was conducted in the department of
ENT(Room No. 609) by the above mentioned members
of the Medical Board. Findings of the examinations are
attached (OPD-116574108). The Board is of the opinion
that the Speech & Language disability of the Petitioner
namely Sh. Gond Omkar Ramchandra would not come
in the way of pursuing the MBBS Course.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. We have heard Mr. S. B. Talekar, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of
India and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned senior counsel for the NMC.
14. This Court made the following order on 18.09.2024:-
“1. Leave granted.
2. For the reasons to be recorded separately, the appeal
is allowed.
3. 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.”
Question before the Court:
15. Merely because the disability is quantified at 44%/45%, should the
appellant be disqualified to obtain admission under the PwD Category
for the MBBS Course?
Analysis and Reasoning:
16. Article 41 in the Directive Principles of State Policy reads as under:
“41. Right to work, to education and to public
assistance in certain cases.-
The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity
and development, make effective provision for securing the
right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases
of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and
in other cases of undeserved want.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 681
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
As is clear, it is the Constitutional goal of our nation that within the
limits of its economic capacity and development, the State was to
make effective provisions for securing the right to education including
for the persons with disabilities.
17. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 replaced the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation), Act 1995. The 2016 Act was a sequel to the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The
Convention laid down principles to be followed by the States Parties
for empowerment of persons with disabilities. The Convention laid
down the following principles for empowerment of persons with
disabilities, which the Act seeks to implement:-
(i) respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the
freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of
persons;
(ii) Non-discrimination;
(iii) full and effective participation and inclusion in society;
(iv) respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities
as part of human diversity and humanity;
(v) equality of opportunity;
(vi) accessibility;
(vii) equality between men and women;
(viii) respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities
and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve
their identities;
(Emphasis supplied)
18. The RPwD Act has several salutary provisions. For the purpose of
our case, special emphasis needs to be provided on Sections 2(m),
2(r), 2(y), 3, 15 and 32. They are extracted herein below.
“2(m) “inclusive education” means a system of education
wherein students with and without disability learn together
and the system of teaching and learning is suitably adapted
to meet the learning needs of different types of students
with disabilities;
682 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
2(r) “person with benchmark disability” means a
person with not less than forty per cent of a specified
disability where specified disability has not been defined
in measurable terms and includes a person with disability
where specified disability has been defined in measurable
terms, as certified by the certifying authority;
2(y) “reasonable accommodation” means necessary
and appropriate modification and adjustments, without
imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular
case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment
or exercise of rights equally with others;
3. Equality and non-discrimination.-
(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the
persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality,
life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity
equally with others.
(2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilise
the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing
appropriate environment.
(3) No person with disability shall be discriminated on
the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the
impugned act or omission is a proportionate means
of achieving a legitimate aim.
(4) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal
liberty only on the ground of disability.
(5) The appropriate Government shall take necessary
steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for
persons with disabilities.
15. Designation of authorities to support.- (1) The
appropriate Government shall designate one or more
authorities to mobilise the community and create social
awareness to support persons with disabilities in exercise
of their legal capacity.
(2) The authority designated under sub-section (1) shall
take measures for setting up suitable support arrangements
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 683
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
to exercise legal capacity by persons with disabilities living
in institutions and those with high support needs and any
other measures as may be required.
32. Reservation in higher educational institutions.-
(1) All Government institutions of higher education and
other higher education institutions receiving aid from the
Government shall reserve not less than five per cent seats
for persons with benchmark disabilities.
(2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given
an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in
institutions of higher education.
19. It is in pursuance of the 5% reservation provided for the persons with
disabilities that the appellant applied for the MBBS course under the
said category. He cleared the exam, however, was denied admission
on the ground that his quantified disability was 44%/45%.
20. The Appendix H-I extracted above provides a peculiar scenario.
While people with less than 40% disability are not eligible for PwD
quota, though they can pursue the Medical Course, persons with
equal to or more than 40% disability are not eligible for the medical
course. Read literally, while persons with speech and language
disability with less than 40% are not entitled to the reserved quota,
if they have 40% or more disability they are rendered ineligible for
the medical course. The column under the guidelines “Eligible for
Medical Course, Eligible for PwD quota” is left blank reinforcing
the absurd position that under this category no one is rendered
eligible for the 5% reserved quota. Certainly that cannot be the
legal position.
21. In any event, adopting a purposive interpretation of the RPwD Act
and, more particularly, of the provisions extracted hereinabove, we
are of the opinion that merely because of the quantification of the
disability for speech and language at 40% or above, a candidate
does not forfeit his right to stake a claim for admission to course of
their choice. We say so for the reason that any such interpretation
would render the clause in Appendix H-1 under the Graduate Medical
Education Regulations of the Medical Council of India (precursor of
the National Medical Commission) dated 13.05.2019, over broad for
treating unequals equally.
684 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
22. In State of Gujarat and Another vs. Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad
and Another (1974) 4 SCC 656, it was held that an over-inclusive
classification includes not only those who are similarly situated with
respect to the purpose but others who are not so situated as well.
Among those with disability percentage of 40% or above in the category
of speech and language disabilities, there will be individuals like the
appellant to whom the disability may not come in the way of pursuing
the particular educational course in question. Lumping together
persons with benchmark disabilities who can pursue the educational
course with those with the same disabilities who, in the opinion of the
Medical Board, cannot pursue the course would tantamount to over
inclusion. This is precisely what Article 14 frowns upon.
23. We are constrained to hold that the Appendix H-1 in the notification
of 13.05.2019, issued by the Medical Council of India cannot be
interpreted to mean that merely because on the quantification of
the disability percentage exceeding the prescribed limits, a person
automatically becomes ineligible for the medical course.
24. Dealing with an absolute bar imposed on women in seeking criteria
or command appointments, this Court, while finding that such
prescription fell foul of Article 14 held that implicit in the guarantee
of equality is the principle that where the action of the State does
differentiate between two classes of person, it does not differentiate
them in an unreasonable or irrational manner. This Court further held
that the right to equality is a right to rationality and whether a particular
candidate should or should not be granted, could be a matter for
the competent authority to decide but a blanket non-consideration of
women for criteria or command appointments absent an individuated
justification was not sustainable in law (See Secretary, Ministry of
Defence v. Babita Puniya and Others (2020) 7 SCC 469 (para 85)
25. A Constitutional Court examining the plea of discrimination is
mandated to consider whether real equality exists. This Court is not
to be carried away by a projection of facial equality. Viewed at first
blush, the regulation providing that all persons with 40% or more
disability are uniformly barred from pursuing the medical course
in the category of speech and language disability, may appear
non-discriminatory. But here too, appearances can be deceptive. The
Court of law is obliged to probe as to whether beneath the veneer
of equality there is any invidious breach of Article 14.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 685
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
26. This Court in Khandige Sham Bhat and Anr vs. Agricultural
Income-tax Officer, Kasaragod, and Anr, AIR 1963 SC 591
observed as under:
“7. Though a law ex facie appears to treat all that fall within
a class alike, if in effect it operates unevenly on persons
or property similarly situated, it may be said that the law
offends the equality clause. It will then be the duty of the
court to scrutinise the effect of the law carefully to ascertain
its real impact on the persons or property similarly situated.
Conversely, a law may treat persons who appear to be
similarly situate differently; but on investigation they may
be found not to be similarly situate. To state it differently,
it is not the phraseology of a statute that governs the
situation but the effect of the law that is decisive. If there
is equality and uniformity within each group, the law will
not be condemned as discriminative, though due to some
fortuitous circumstance arising out of a peculiar situation
some included in a class get an advantage over others, so
long as they are not singled out for special treatment….”
27. Similarly, in Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha & Ors. vs. Union of India
& Ors. (2021) 15 SCC 125, this Court observed as under:
“52. We must clarify here that the use of the term “indirect
discrimination” is not to refer to discrimination which
is remote, but is, instead, as real as any other form
of discrimination. Indirect discrimination is caused by
facially neutral criteria by not taking into consideration the
underlying effects of a provision, practice or a criterion”
28. In fact, the “One Size Fits All” theory in deciding eligibility of persons
with disability to avail the benefit of reserved seats was questioned
first in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. vs. Union of India and
Others (2023) 2 SCC 209 wherein this Court had the following to
say: -
“77. Since disability is a social construct dependent on the
interplay between mental impairment with barriers such as
social, economic and historical among other factors, the
one-size-fits-all approach can never be used to identify
the disability of a person. Disability is not universal but
686 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
is an individualistic conception based on the impairment
that a person has along with the barriers that they face.
Since the barriers that every person faces are personal to
their surroundings — interpersonal and structural, general
observations on “how a person ought to have behaved”
cannot be made.”
29. Close on the heels of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) came an
order of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 856 of 2023 [Bambhaniya
Sagar Vasharambhai vs. Union of India & Ors.]. In the said writ
petition, by order dated 22.09.2023, in Para 13, this Court opined
as under:
“13. In the opinion of this Court in cases even of specified
disabilities, in all cases the standard of 40% may result in
“one size fit all” norm which will exclude eligible candidates.
The Union, therefore, shall consider the steps to mitigate
such anomalies, because a lower extent of disabilities
bar benefits and at the same time render them functional,
whereas higher extent of disability would entitle benefits,
but also result in denying them the benefit of reservation.
The National Commission and the Central Government
are directed to consider the problem and work out suitable
solutions to enable effective participation.”
30. Though ultimately Writ Petition (C) No. 856 of 2023 was dismissed
on 31.10.2023, the issue with regard to finding a suitable solution
to facilitate the effective participation of persons with disabilities by
the Central Government, as suggested in the order of 22.09.2023,
was directed to be complied with.
31. It must be said to the credit of the Union of India that the directions
of this Court in Bambhaniya (Supra) was carried forward and the
Government of India through the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment issued a communication dated 25.01.2024 to the
National Medical Commission.
32. The communication was placed on record by Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned
ASG. The Government of India mentioned in the communication that
the National Medical Commission was obliged to take into account
the developments in aids and assistive devices and also in other
technologies which are capable of reducing the effects of disability
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 687
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
and ensure that the statutory requirements of RPwD Act are followed
in letter and spirit. It was further mentioned in the communication
that, pursuant to deliberations, the National Medical Commission was
required to take action of providing a drop-down menu or a mandatory
category in the electronic application form. That drop down menu
or the mandatory category was to mention which categories and
percentage of disability are suitable for pursuing the MBBS Course,
and, if necessary, the disability categories in the form should also
show symptoms which would normally be excluded by the medical
board. It was also stated therein that a Meeting should be held with
the National Testing Agency and proper classification of disabilities
should be made in the application form so as to ensure that once
the candidate was allowed to take the examination, the candidate
was not denied admission merely on the ground of disability. It was
further mentioned that the regulations of NMC should immediately
be reviewed.
33. Attention was also drawn of the National Medical Commission to
the position obtaining in the Department of Personnel and Training
(DoPT), wherein functional classification and physical requirements
consistent with requirements of the identified service/posts are being
worked out for Civil Services. It was directed that on the lines of the
exercise by DoPT, NMC should also work out functional classifications
and physical requirements consistent with the requirements of medical
profession and review its regulations accordingly. It was ordered that
NMC should sensitize all the colleges with respect to reservation
criteria for persons with benchmark disabilities as per the RPwD Act
and also towards the requirements of such candidates once admitted.
Suggestion was made for formation of Appellate Body against the
decisions of the Medical Boards.
(Emphasis supplied)
34. We commend the Union of India, for having issued the communication
dated 25.01.2024 through the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment. We also deem it appropriate to extract the
communication:-
“Subject: Compliance of Hon’ble Supreme Court order
dated 22.09.2023 in WP (C) 856 of 2023 in the matter of
Bambhaniya Sagar Vashrambhai vs UOI and ors – reg
688 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Sir,
I am directed to refer to the captioned Court case and
to your letter dated 13.10.2023 and to say that the
Central Government has enacted the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act. 2016 which came into effect on
19.04.2017. Section 32 of the said Act provides that
(1) All Government institutions of higher education and
other higher education institutions receiving aid from the
Government shall reserve not less than five per cent seats
for persons with benchmark disabilities (2) The persons
with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age
relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of
higher education.
Persons with Benchmark disability is defined under
Section 2(r) as a person with not less than forty percent
of a specified disability where specified disability has
not been defined in measurable terms and includes
a person with disability where specified disability has
been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the
certifying authority.
2. It is also stated that at least 5% reservation to persons
with benchmark disabilities in higher education is a
statutory provision and denial of this benefit to eligible
candidates is violation of a statutory provision. It is also
a point to be noted that extending this facility to persons
with disabilities having less than 40% disability would
not qualify as fulfilment of statutory obligations. The
Government is also cognizant of the challenges that
exist in balancing the statutory rights of persons with
benchmark disabilities viz a viz strenuous requirement
of the medical profession. NMC is therefore requested to
take into account the developments in aids and assistive
devices and also in other technologies which are capable
of reducing the effects of disability and ensure that the
statutory requirements of RPwD Act, 2016 are followed
in letter and spirit.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 689
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
3. Further, it may be recalled that, in pursuance to your
letter dated 13.10.2023 vide which certain suggestions
have been made to address the issues faced by PwDs, a
meeting was held on 21.12.2023 under the Chairpersonship
of Joint Secretary, Policy. Draft Minutes of the meeting were
issued on 26.12.2023 upon which comments were received
from NMC and DGHS. In pursuance of these comments,
the matter was further considered in the Department and
the following emerged:
i. While filling up the NEET electronic form by PwDs, NMC
there must be a drop down or a mandatory category to take
which should mention which categories and action
percentage of disability are suitable for pursuing
the MBBS course. If it is necessary, the disability
categories may also show symptoms which would
normally be excluded by the medical board. Such
form should be accessible.
NMC may also consider linking this form to
DEPwD’s UDID portal i.e. www.swavlambancard.
gov.in
ii. A meeting should be done with National Testing
Agency and proper classification of disabilities
should be made in application forms so as to ensure
that once the candidate is allowed to take the
examination, she/he will not be denied admission
merely on the ground of disability.
iii. The regulations issued by NMC regarding
admission of students with specified disabilities
must be immediately reviewed. In this context,
reference may be taken from DoPT wherein
functional classification and physical requirements
(abilities/disabilities) consistent with requirements
of the identified service/posts are being worked
out for Civil Services. On the lines of this exercise
by DoPT, NMC should also work out functional
classifications and physical requirements (abilities/
disabilities) consistent with the requirements of
medical profession and review its regulations
accordingly. While carrying out this exercise,
NMC should also take into account assessment
guidelines dated 04.01.2018 and amendments
made thereto.
690 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
iv. The NMC should sensitize all the colleges with
respect to reservation criteria for persons with
benchmark disabilities (disability of 40% or more)
as per the RPwD Act, 2016 and also towards the
needs of such candidates once admitted.
v. The availability of medical boards in the country DGHS
should be increased and there must be minimum to take
1 medical board in each State and UTs for proper action
medical examination of the students who have
passed the examination. Further, larger States/
UTs should have sufficient number of such medical
boards to streamline the process.
vi. In case the PwD wants to challenge any decision
of the medical board with regard to admission, an
appellate body at the level of DGHS may be formed.
vii. All India Institute of Medical Sciences at all places
should be designated for issuing certificates of
eligibility for attaining medical education.
In view of the above, NMC and DGHS is requested to
take appropriate action and a report may be sent to this
Department.”
35. We have no reason to doubt that the National Medical Commission
will expeditiously comply with the requirements in the communication
of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 25.01.2024.
In any event, we direct that the needful be done by the National
Medical Commission before the publication of the admission brochure
for the academic year 2025-26.
36. In fact, a perusal of the amendment notification dated 13.05.2019
and the Guidelines at Appendix H-1 would indicate that with regard
to some categories of Disabilities particularly, Locomotor Disability,
including specified disabilities like Leprosy cured person, Cerebral
Palsy, Dwarfism, Muscular Dystrophy, Acid attack victims and other
such as Amputation, Poliomyelitis etc. under the column “Eligible
for the Medical Course,Eligible for PwD Quota” the following finds
mention:-
“40%-80% disability
Persons with more than 80% disability may also be allowed
on case to case basis and their functional competency
will be determined with the aid of assistive devices, if it is
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 691
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
being used, to see if it is brought below 80% and whether
they posses sufficient motor ability as required to pursue
and complete the course satisfactorily.”
(Emphasis supplied)
37. Similarly, for specific learning disabilities, Perceptual disabilities,
Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, Dyspraxia under the column “Eligible for
Medical Course, Eligible for PwD Quota”, it is mentioned as follows”
“Equal to or more than 40% disability and equal to or less
than 80%.
But selection will be based on the learning competency
evaluated with the help of the remediation/assisted
technology/aids/infrastructural changes by the Expert
Panel.”
38. We are hopeful that in the revised regulations and guidelines which
the National Medical Commission will issue, an inclusive attitude
will be taken towards persons with disabilities from all categories
furthering the concept of reasonable accommodation recognized in
the RPwD Act. The approach of the Government, instrumentalities
of States, regulatory bodies and for that matter even private sector
should be, as to how best can one accommodate and grant the
opportunity to the candidates with disability. The approach should not
be as to how best to disqualify the candidates and make it difficult
for them to pursue and realize their educational goals.
39. We have also examined the latest notified Guidelines for assessing
the extent of Specified Disabilities dated 14.03.2024, which deals with
the method for ascertaining the percentage of disabilities. In Clause
20.3.3, under the Computation of percentage Speech Disability, the
following table is provided:-
“20.3.3. Computation of percentage Speech Disability
(a) Speech Intelligibility Test:
The verbal output of person should be evaluated
using Perceptual Speech Intelligibility Rating Scale
[AYJNISHD (D), 2022] (Appendix IV) and percentage of
Speech Intelligibility Affected (SIA) to be measured based
on score as the table given below:
692 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Point Description of Speech Sample Percentage
Scale of Disability
1 Normal 0-15
2 Can understand without difficulty, 16-30
however, feel speech is normal
3 Can understand with little effort 31-39
occasionally need to ask for repetition
4 Can understand with concentration 40-55
and effort especially by sympathetic
listener, require a minimum of two or
three repetition.
5 Can understand with difficulty and 56-75
concentration by family but not others
6 Can understand with effort if content 76-89
is known
7 Cannot understand at all even when 90-100
content is known
(Emphasis supplied)
To illustrate, it will be seen that a person with 40 to 55% speech
disability is one who “Can understand with concentration and effort”
especially by a sympathetic listener; require a minimum of 2 or 3
repetitions. In fact, for the entire range, this is the criterion.
40. It is in matters like this that the principles of reasonable accommodation
should come into full play. Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act, defines
“reasonable accommodation” to mean necessary and appropriate
modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate
or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with
disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others.
The concept of reasonable accommodation would encompass within
itself the deployment of a purposive and meaningful construction
of the NMC Regulations of 13.05.2019 read with the Appendix H-1
guidelines in a manner as to further the objectives of the RPwD
Act. The reasonable accommodation as defined in Section 2(y) of
the RPwD Act should not be understood narrowly to mean only the
provision of assisting devices and other tangible substances which
will aid persons with disabilities. If the mandate of the law is to ensure
a full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in the
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 693
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
society and if the whole idea was to exclude conditions that prevent
their full and effective participation as equal members of society, a
broad interpretation of the concept of reasonable accommodation
which will further the objective of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of
the Directive Principles of State Policy is mandated.
41. This concept of reasonable accommodation has come in for
judicial interpretation in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC & Others (2021)
5 SCC 370 wherein this Court held that the principle of reasonable
accommodation captures the positive obligation of the State and
private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities
to facilitate their full and effective participation in society. In Para 44,
it was held as under.
“44. The principle of reasonable accommodation captures
the positive obligation of the State and private parties to
provide additional support to persons with disabilities to
facilitate their full and effective participation in society. The
concept of reasonable accommodation is developed in
section (H) below. For the present, suffice it to say that,
for a person with disability, the constitutionally guaranteed
fundamental rights to equality, the six freedoms and the
right to life under Article 21 will ring hollow if they are not
given this additional support that helps make these rights
real and meaningful for them. Reasonable accommodation
is the instrumentality—are an obligation as a society—
to enable the disabled to enjoy the constitutional guarantee
of equality and non-discrimination. In this context, it would
be apposite to remember R.M. Lodha, J’s (as he then was)
observation in Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union
of India (2014) 14 SCC 383, where he stated : (SCC p.
387, para 9)
“9. … In the matters of providing relief to those who are
differently abled, the approach and attitude of the executive
must be liberal and relief oriented and not obstructive or
lethargic.”
42. Thereafter, in the said judgment, this Court held in para 62, 63 and
65 as under.
“62. The principle of reasonable accommodation
acknowledges that if disability as a social construct has
694 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to be remedied, conditions have to be affirmatively created
for facilitating the development of the disabled. Reasonable
accommodation is founded in the norm of inclusion.
Exclusion results in the negation of individual dignity
and worth or they can choose the route of reasonable
accommodation, where each individuals’ dignity and
worth is respected. Under this route, the “powerful and
the majority adapt their own rules and practices, within
the limits of reason and short of undue hardship, to permit
realisation of these ends”.
63. In the specific context of disability, the principle of
reasonable accommodation postulates that the conditions
which exclude the disabled from full and effective
participation as equal members of society have to give way
to an accommodative society which accepts difference,
respects their needs and facilitates the creation of an
environment in which the societal barriers to disability
are progressively answered. Accommodation implies a
positive obligation to create conditions conducive to the
growth and fulfilment of the disabled in every aspect of
their existence — whether as students, members of the
workplace, participants in governance or, on a personal
plane, in realising the fulfilling privacies of family life. The
accommodation which the law mandates is “reasonable”
because it has to be tailored to the requirements of each
condition of disability. The expectations which every
disabled person has are unique to the nature of the
disability and the character of the impediments which are
encountered as its consequence.
65. Failure to meet the individual needs of every disabled
person will breach the norm of reasonable accommodation.
Flexibility in answering individual needs and requirements
is essential to reasonable accommodation. The principle
contains an aspiration to meet the needs of the class of
persons facing a particular disability. Going beyond the
needs of the class, the specific requirement of individuals
who belong to the class must also be accommodated.
The principle of reasonable accommodation must also
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 695
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
account for the fact that disability based discrimination is
intersectional in nature….”
43. It should be borne in mind that the RPwD Act which was enacted to
give effect to the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons
with Disabilities - was with the objective of granting persons with
disabilities full and effective participation and inclusion in society,
grant them equal opportunity and to show respect for their inherent
dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make their
own choices.
44. This Court in Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2016)
7 SCC 761 observed as under :
“40. In international human rights law, equality is
founded upon two complementary principles: non-
discrimination and reasonable differentiation. The principle
of non-discrimination seeks to ensure that all persons
can equally enjoy and exercise all their rights and
freedoms. Discrimination occurs due to arbitrary denial
of opportunities for equal participation. For example,
when public facilities and services are set on standards
out of the reach of persons with disabilities, it leads to
exclusion and denial of rights. Equality not only implies
preventing discrimination (example, the protection of
individuals against unfavourable treatment by introducing
anti-discrimination laws), but goes beyond in remedying
discrimination against groups suffering systematic
discrimination in society. In concrete terms, it means
embracing the notion of positive rights, affirmative action
and reasonable accommodation…”
(Emphasis supplied)
45. In view of this mandate, while interpreting the RPwD Act and the
agnate regulations, one must keep in mind the background and
purpose for which the law was enacted. (See U.P. Bhoodan Yagna
Samiti, U.P. v. Braj Kishore and others (1988) 4 SCC 274). In the
said judgment, quoting from Lord Denning in “The Discipline of Law”,
this Court held as under:
“15. When we are dealing with the phrase “landless
persons” these words are from English language and
696 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
therefore I am reminded of what Lord Denning said about it.
Lord Denning in “The Discipline of Law” at p. 12 observed
as under: [ Quoting from his decision in Seaford Court
Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949) 2 KB 481]
“Whenever a statute comes up for consideration it must be
remembered that it is not within human powers to foresee
the manifold sets of facts which may arise, and, even if it
were, it is not possible to provide for them in terms free from
all ambiguity. The English language is not an instrument
of mathematical precision. Our literature would be much
the poorer if it were. This is where the draftsmen of Acts
of Parliament have often been unfairly criticised. A Judge,
believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule that
he must look to the language and nothing else, laments
that the draftsmen have not provided for this, or that, or
have been guilty of some or other ambiguity. It would
certainly save the Judges trouble if Acts of Parliament
were drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity. In
the absence of it, when a defect appears a Judge cannot
simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must
set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention
of Parliament ...”
16. And it is clear that when one has to look to the intention
of the legislature, one has to look to the circumstances
under which the law was enacted. The preamble of the
law, the mischief which was intended to be remedied by
the enactment of the statute and in this context, Lord
Denning, in the same book at p. 10, observed as under:
“At one time the Judges used to limit themselves to the bare
reading of the statute itself — to go simply by the words,
giving them their grammatical meaning, and that was all.
That view was prevalent in the 19th century and still has
some supporters today. But it is wrong in principle. The
meaning for which we should seek is the meaning of the
statute as it appears to those who have to obey it — and
to those who have to advise them what to do about it; in
short, to lawyers like yourselves. Now the statute does not
come to such folk as if they were eccentrics cut off from
all that is happening around them. The statute comes to
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 697
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
them as men of affairs — who have their own feeling for
the meaning of the words and know the reason why the
Act was passed — just as if it had been fully set out in a
preamble. So it has been held very rightly that you can
inquire into the mischief which gave rise to the statute —
to see what was the evil which it was sought to remedy.
It is now well settled that in order to interpret a law one
must understand the background and the purpose for
which the law was enacted…”
(Emphasis supplied)
46. Disabilities Assessment Boards are not monotonous automations
to just look at the quantified benchmark disability as set out in
the certificate of disability and cast aside the candidate. Such an
approach would be antithetical to Article 14 and Article 21 and all
canons of justice, equity and good conscience. It will also defeat the
salutary objectives of the RPwD Act. The Disabilities Assessment
Boards are obliged to examine the further question as to whether
the candidate in the opinion of the experts in the field is eligible to
pursue the course or in other words, whether the disability will or
will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in
question.
47. The concept of “inclusive education” has been elucidated in Avni
Prakash v. National Testing Agency, (NTA) and others (2023) 2
SCC 286. This Court held as under.
“40. Education plays a key role in social and economic
inclusion and effective participation in society. Inclusive
education is indispensable for ensuring universal and
non-discriminatory access to education. The Convention on
Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises that inclusive
education systems must be put in place for a meaningful
realisation of the right to education for PwD. Thus, a right
to education is essentially a right to inclusive education. In
India, the RPwD Act, 2016 provides statutory backing to
the principle of inclusive education. Section 2(m) defines
“inclusive education” as:
“2. (m) “inclusive education” means a system of education
wherein students with and without disability learn together
698 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and the system of teaching and learning is suitably adapted
to meet the learning needs of different types of students
with disabilities;”
48. While interpreting the Regulations and Guidelines, as provided in
Appendix H-1 to the notification dated 13.05.2019, as they stood for
the academic year 2024-25, we are constrained, keeping in mind
the salutary object of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of the Directive
Principles of State Policy, to direct that mere existence of benchmark
disability of 40% or above (or such other prescribed percentages
depending on the disability) will not disqualify a candidate from
being eligible for the course applied for. The Disability Assessment
Boards assessing the candidates should positively record whether
the disability of the candidate will or will not come in the way of the
candidate pursuing the course in question. The Disability Assessment
Boards should state reasons in the event of the Disability Assessment
Board concluding that candidate is not eligible for pursuing the course.
49. The Disability Assessment Boards will, pending formulation of
appropriate Regulations by the NMC, pursuant to the communication
of 25.01.2024 by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
keep in mind the salutary points mentioned in the said communication
while forming their opinion.
50. Pending creation of the Appellate body, we further direct that such
decisions of the Disability Assessment Boards which give a negative
opinion for the candidate will be amenable to challenge in judicial
review proceedings. The Court seized of the matter in the judicial
review proceedings shall refer the case of the candidate to any
premier medical institute having the facility for an independent opinion
and relief to the candidate will be granted or denied based on the
opinion of the said medical institution to which the High Court had
referred the matter.
51. Before we part, we will do well to recollect that acclaimed
Bharatanatyam dancer Sudha Chandran, Arunima Sinha who
conquered Mount Everest, prominent sports personality, H. Boniface
Prabhu, entrepreneur Srikanth Bolla and Dr. Satendra Singh, the
founder of ‘Infinite Ability’, are some of the shining daughters and
sons from a long and illustrious list of individuals in India who scaled
extraordinary heights braving all adversities.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 699
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors.
52. The world would have been so much the poorer if Homer, Milton,
Mozart, Beethoven, Byron and many more would not have been
allowed to realize their full potential. Distinguished Indian Medical
Practitioner Dr. Farokh Erach Udwadia in his classic work “The
Forgotten Art of Healing and Others Essays’ under the Chapter ‘Art
and Medicine’ rightly extolls their extraordinary talent, and of the
many more similarly circumstanced.
Conclusion and Directions:
53. For the reasons set out hereinabove,
(i) We hold that quantified disability per se will not dis-entitle a
candidate with benchmark disability from being considered
for admission to educational institutions. The candidate will
be eligible, if the Disability Assessment Board opines that
notwithstanding the quantified disability the candidate can
pursue the course in question. The NMC regulations in the
notification of 13.05.2019 read with the Appendix H-1 should,
pending the re-formulation by NMC, be read in the light of the
holdings in this judgment.
(ii) The Disability Assessment Boards assessing the candidates
should positively record whether the disability of the candidate
will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the
course in question. The Disability Assessment Boards should
state reasons in the event of the Disability Assessment Boards
concluding that the candidate is not eligible for pursuing the
course.
(iii) The Disability Assessment Boards will, pending formulation
of appropriate regulations by the NMC, pursuant to the
communication of 25.01.2024 by the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment, keep in mind the salutary points mentioned
in the said communication while forming their opinion.
(iv) Pending creation of the appellate body, we further direct that
such decisions of the Disability Assessment Boards which give a
negative opinion for the candidate will be amenable to challenge
in judicial review proceedings. The Court seized of the matter
in the judicial review proceedings shall refer the case of the
candidate to any premier medical institute having the facility,
700 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
for an independent opinion and relief to the candidate will be
granted or denied based on the opinion of the said medical
institution to which the High Court had referred the matter.
(v) We have already, pursuant to our order dated 18.09.2024, in
view of the favorable report dated 13.09.2024 of the Maulana
Azad Medical College, granted admission to the appellant. We
confirm the admission and direct the concerned authorities to
treat the admission as a valid admission in the eye of law.
54. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 is
set aside. In view of our directions, Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 24821
of 2024 pending in the High Court of judicature at Bombay will
stand disposed of in terms of the holding in the present judgment.
No order as to costs.
Result of the Case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "MBBS admission"Sign in to search