Prescription In NMC Guidelines Such As “Both Hands Intact…” Reeks Of Ableism: Supreme Court Confirms MBBS Admission Of Candidate With Disability
The Supreme Court allowed a candidate's Civil Appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's Order, upholding the denial of his admission to the MBBS Course.
The Supreme Court while confirming the MBBS Admission of a candidate with disability, observed that a prescription such as “both hands intact…” reeks of ableism.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal preferred by the said candidate against the Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Division Bench by which it rejected his claim and upheld the denial of his admission to the MBBS Course.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan remarked, “A prescription such as “both hands intact…” reeks of ableism and has no place in a statutory regulation. In fact, it has the effect of denuding the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the RPwD Act and makes a mockery of the principle of reasonable accommodation.”
The Bench held that the 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 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (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. This is precisely what the Directive Principles of State Policy, the United Nations Convention and the RPwD Act abhor”, it added.
AOR Atim Inam, Advocates Rishit Vimadalal, Shrutika Pandey, and Karuvaki Mohanty appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee, Senior Advocates Gaurav Sharma, Nachinketa Joshi, and Advocate Pankhuri Shrivastava appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Appellant, a “person with disabilities” had a distinguished academic record in school and passed his 10th grade and 12th grade examination with flying colours. He had locomotor disability 50% with Club foot right lower limb with Phocomalia, Left middle ring finger through middle phalanx with right middle index finger through middle phalanx. Further, he had speech and language disability of 20%. The final disability computed was 58%. He aspired to be a medical professional and hence, appeared for the NEET-UG 2024 Examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). On declaration of results, he obtained rank 2462 in the PwD Category and the cut-off obtained by him was far above the cut-off for the OBC-PwD Category.
The Appellant approached the Government Medical College, Chandigarh - the designated Disability Certification Centre to get his disability assessed. Without assigning any reason whatsoever and without examining the functional disability and merely being carried away by the quantified disability, the Disability Assessment Board (DAB), by its Certificate, rendered him ineligible to pursue medical course. Being aggrieved, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, seeking to quash the disability certificate and sought a fresh assessment. However, his Petition was dismissed on the ground that the Court cannot substitute the opinion of the experts in the field of disability. Hence, he was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… flexibility in answering individual needs and requirements is an essential component of reasonable accommodation. There cannot be a “one size fits all” approach. However, in the guidelines appendix H-1 to regulations of 13.05.2019 of “both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion” are considered essential to be eligible for the medical course.”
The Court noted that the report of the five members has not set out any reasons and does not indicate as to how the functional assessment of the Appellant was carried out. It added that the same mentions that a functional assessment was carried out, but the five members are completely silent on how the Appellant failed in the functional assessment test.
“Obviously, they felt shackled by the “both hands intact…” theory which we have discarded relying on the Union of India’s directive as approved in Omkar Ramchandra Gond (supra). Accepting the report of five members and denying the admission of the appellant would be upholding the theory of ableism which we are not prepared to do”, it further observed.
The Court also held that the “both hands intact…” prescription has no sanctity in law as it does not admit of a functional assessment of the individual candidate, a matter which is so fundamental in protecting the rights of persons with disabilities.
“Having set out the legal position governing the situation, we have no hesitation in concluding that the report of the five members of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences cannot be the basis to deny the appellant’s admission to the MBBS Course”, it said.
Moreover, the Court reiterated that the Courts are not expert bodies in the matters of medicine and have the jurisdiction to ensure that the manner in which the Board proceeds and functions are in compliance with the established principles of law.
“For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the report of Dr. Satendra Singh and confirm the admission granted to the appellant by our order dated 12.12.2024 in the Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan. … 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”, it directed.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and confirmed the admission of the Appellant.
Cause Title- Anmol v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 256)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Atim Inam, Advocates Rishit Vimadalal, Shrutika Pandey, and Karuvaki Mohanty.
Respondents: ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, Senior Advocates Gaurav Sharma, Nachinketa Joshi, AORs Neelam Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Amrish Kumar, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advocates Pankhuri Shrivastava, Alekshendra Sharma, Aditya Kumar, Dhawal Mohan, Paranjay Tripathi, Rajesh Raj, Raghav Sharma, Ayush Anand, Astha Singh, Ishaan Sharma, Aaditya Shankar Dixit, and Krishna Kant Dubey.
