The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by a medical aspirant with a locomotor disability who sought admission to the MBBS course despite being declared ineligible due to his physical condition.

"There is a categorical finding and the opinion of the experts in the medical field, who are authorized to make the assessment of functional disability of the petitioner and to further decide as to whether a candidate is fit to pursue an MBBS course, or not, and this Court cannot substitute its own opinion or assessment, being not an expert in the medical field. This Court will have to be guided by this opinion and in view of the said opinion, this Court would be unable to grant any relief to Kabir since the Medical Board at AIIMS has opined that Kabir would not be Eligible to pursue the MBBS course," the Court said.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made it clear that while the Court has broad discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, it cannot overstep its boundaries by interfering with or altering the eligibility criteria established by medical experts.

The Court emphasized that the evaluation of Kabir’s ability to pursue medical studies and later practice as a doctor must be entrusted to those with specialized knowledge in medical education. "While Article 226 of the Constitution grants this Court wide discretionary powers, this Court is conscious of the fact that such powers are not so expansive as to allow the Court to create or modify eligibility criteria for pursuing medical education. These standards, including those related to physical and mental fitness, are determined by experts and institutions with specialized knowledge in the field of medical education," the Court held.

The aspirant, who has multiple missing fingers, contended that his disability should not bar him from pursuing his medical education and career. However, the Court, while acknowledging Kabir's determination and achievements, held that the assessment of his functional ability to practice medicine should be left to experts in the medical field.

Kabir, who suffers from a locomotor disability, secured a PwD (Persons with Disabilities) Category Rank of 176 in the NEET UG 2024 examination. According to his Disability Certificate, his disability was recorded at 42%, in accordance with Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), making him eligible to seek admission under the PwD category.

However, when Kabir approached the Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital (VMMC-SJ Hospital) in New Delhi for a Certificate of Disability required for NEET admissions, the medical board there assessed his disability at 68%. Although this figure fell within the permissible range of 40% to 80%, the Medical Board declared Kabir ineligible to pursue medical studies due to the nature of his functional disability.

Kabir challenged this decision, arguing that the VMMC-SJ Hospital's Medical Board had disqualified him without a thorough in-person examination or a detailed evaluation of his functional capabilities. In his plea, Kabir claimed that the decision violated his rights under Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice a profession) of the Indian Constitution. He also asserted that the disqualification breached provisions of the RPwD Act, particularly Section 3, which mandates reasonable accommodation and non-discrimination.

During a prior hearing, the Court had considered Kabir’s plea and directed the formation of a new Medical Board at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to independently assess his functional disability. After a detailed examination, the AIIMS Medical Board reached the same conclusion as the earlier assessment at VMMC-SJ Hospital, finding that Kabir’s disability made him ineligible to pursue medical education.

Despite the AIIMS Board’s conclusion, Kabir’s counsel argued that the Court itself could assess whether his disability would hinder his ability to pursue a career in medicine. However, the Court disagreed, stating that the functional assessment of Kabir’s condition had already been thoroughly evaluated by the Medical Board, and the Court had no basis to question or overrule the findings of medical experts.

"The functional assessment of the disability, which was essential to decide the present case, has been categorically assessed by the Medical Board, and a detailed report has been prepared by the Board consisting of experts in the medical field. The Court has to rely on their finding since their findings are categorical," the Court stated.

While expressing sympathy for Kabir’s situation, the Court made it clear that it could not substitute its judgment for that of the medical experts. It noted that while the Court is disheartened by the outcome, it must apply the law as it stands and respect the conclusions drawn by those qualified to assess medical fitness for such a demanding profession. "The Courts have to apply the law as it is and adjudicate the cases accordingly," the judgment stated.

The Court further remarked on Kabir’s resilience and determination, stating, "His determination to succeed despite physical limitations speaks volumes about the human spirit and resilience. For a young boy to have never allowed his disability to stop him from scoring high in a competitive exam like NEET is a remarkable achievement."

However, the Court emphasized that it must respect the medical assessments and the existing statutory framework, and therefore, could not grant Kabir the relief he sought.

Conclusively, the Bench dismissed Kabir’s petition, upholding the decision of the Medical Boards that had declared him ineligible to pursue medical studies. While dismissing, the petition, the Court grant some succour to Kabir by referring to Great Sant Kabir, his namesake: [Those who search, find, by diving deep into the waters, I, the fool, was scared to drown and remained sitting on the shore]

"The meaning of the proverb is that those who work hard, they get something or the other. This means that a hard-working diver goes into deep water and brings something back, whereas one who is scared to drown and does not make efforts to achieve their aims or hard work are unable to find much in their life. Kabir, the petitioner belongs to the first category and even if his functional disability has held him back this academic year, his academic record reflecting his hard work will find him some other stream which may fulfill his dreams of achievement and serving the society," the Court said in its Judgment.

Cause Title: Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission and Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2024: DHC: 6956]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Rahul Bajaj, Taha Bin Tasneem, Amar Jain

Respondent: Advocates T. Singhdev, Abhijit Chakravarty, Anum Hussain, Jaswinder Singh

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Swarana Kanta SharmaDelhi High CourtMBBS

Sukriti Mishra