Supreme Court Holds Quantified Disability Alone Cannot Bar MBBS Admission; Confirms PwD Candidate's Seat and Directs NMC Review

A Bench of Justices K. V. Viswanathan and B. R. Gavai heard the appeal arising from a Division Bench order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana which had upheld the denial of MBBS admission to the appellant, a person with disabilities, by a Disability Assessment Board. The challenge concerned whether quantified disability and an unreasoned medical certificate could disqualify a candidate who had secured a NEET-UG rank in the PwD category from admission under the OBC‑PwD quota.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 23.09.2024 and confirmed the interim admission granted to the appellant in Government Medical College, Sirohi (Rajasthan). The judgment held that “quantified disability per se will not dis-entitle a candidate” and that Disability Assessment Boards must undertake a functional assessment, give reasoned opinions and consider reasonable accommodation and assistive technologies. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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, 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.” The Court also recorded that the statutory prescription “both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion” in the NMC guidelines could not be applied mechanically and described such a formulaic approach as amounting to ableism.

Background The appellant, who obtained a NEET-UG 2024 rank 2462 in the PwD category and had a computed disability of 58% (locomotor disability with phocomelia and speech‑language disability), sought disability certification at the designated centre in Chandigarh. The local Disability Assessment Board issued a certificate on 02.09.2024 which, without detailed functional assessment or reasons, rendered him ineligible for MBBS. He challenged that certificate by filing CWP No. 24293 of 2024 before the High Court; a Division Bench dismissed his petition, declining to substitute its view for that of the experts.

On grant of special leave, this Court directed AIIMS, New Delhi to constitute a committee and obtain an independent assessment; the AIIMS report comprised two parts — a five‑member opinion which, citing the extant NMC guidelines, found the candidate unfit, and a separate detailed opinion by Dr. Satendra Singh which concluded the appellant “can successfully navigate the MBBS course with clinical accommodations and assistive technologies.” The Supreme Court found the five‑member report deficient because it did not record reasons or a proper functional assessment and itself acknowledged that the “current NMC Guidelines perhaps need revision.” The Court relied on its recent precedents (including Omkar Ramchandra Gond and Om Rathod) holding that Disability Assessment Boards must perform case‑by‑case functional assessments, consider reasonable accommodation and give reasoned orders. The Supreme Court accepted Dr. Satendra Singh’s assessment, held that “incompetence to pursue the MBBS Course cannot be presumed at the threshold stage,” set aside the High Court order, confirmed admission to Government Medical College, Sirohi, and directed the National Medical Commission to file an affidavit by 03.03.2025 stating the status of formulation of revised guidelines in accordance with the Court’s directions. No order as to costs was made.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14333 OF 2024 (@ SLP (C) NO. 27632 OF 2024) Case Title: ANMOL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Atim Inam; assisted by Mr. Rishit Vimadalal, Ms. Shrutika Pandey and Ms. Karuvaki Mohanty, Advocates for the Appellant For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Senior Advocate; Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Advocate for the Respondents