Quantified Disability Won't Disentitle Candidate With Benchmark Disability For Admission to Educational Institutions: SC Issues Directions On NMC Guidelines

The Supreme Court has issued some important directions regarding the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines for the admission of students with “specified disabilities” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

The Court was deciding a civil appeal filed by a disabled person seeking reliefs for getting admission.

The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan issued the following directions –

(i) 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 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, 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.

Advocate S.B. Talekar appeared for the appellant while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.D. Sanjay and Senior Advocate Gaurav Sharma appeared for the respondents.

Facts of the Case -

The appellant grew up in a middle-class family in the city of Latur in Maharashtra State and his father was a government servant. The appellant had a creditable academic performance in his tenth standard scoring 97.2% and he cleared his school final in the first division. He aspired to be a doctor but he had speech and language disability and was diagnosed with Hypernasality with Misarticulation IN K/C/O Repaired Bilateral CLEFT of palate. He was certified to have 45% (in some reports, it was mentioned as 44%) permanent disability as per the Disability Certificate. He applied for the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test NEET (UG), 2024 for admission to MBBS Course from the category of Persons with Disability and Other Backward Classes (OBC). 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 NMC guidelines regarding admission of students with “specified disabilities” under the RPwD Act.

The appellant appeared for the NEET and qualified the same. On approaching the Designated Disability Centre, it was 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, he was not eligible to pursue the medical course as per NMC norms. In view of that, he was rendered ineligible person to obtain PwD reservation or to pursue medical course as per the NMC Gazette notification. Being disappointed with this, the appellant approached the Bombay High Court. The Court stood over the matter to September 19, 2024 and did not pass any interim order. Running against time as the last date for submitting the choice for admission and since the results were to be declared, he was before the Apex Court seeking urgent reliefs.

The question that arose before the Court was: 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?

The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, observed, “… 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.”

The Court emphasised that, 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”, it added.

Furthermore, the Court said that 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 and that 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.

“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”, it noted.

The Court enunciated that 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 and if the mandate of the law is to ensure a full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in the 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 (DPSP) is mandated.

“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”, also noted the Court before parting with the judgment.

The Court remarked that 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.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, confirmed the appellant’s admission, and directed the authorities to treat the same as valid admission.

Cause Title- Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 775)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Pulkit Agarwal, Advocates S.B. Talekar, and Pradnya Talekar.

Respondents: ASG S.D. Sanjay, Senior Advocate Gaurav Sharma, AORs N. Visakamurthy, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Sudhakar Kulwant, Yashraj Bundela, Kartikeya Asthana, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Paranjay Tripathi, Rajesh Raj, Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse, and Adarsh Dubey.

Click here to read/download the Judgment