Disability guidelines for MBBS admissions: Supreme Court deadline to NMC
Supreme Court of India
SC Allots AIIMS MBBS Seat to PwBD MBBS Aspirant
New Delhi: While granting relief to a disabled medical aspirant by allowing him an MBBS seat at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, the Supreme Court has ordered the National Medical Commission (NMC) to revise the guidelines for admitting disabled students to the MBBS course within two months.
Observing that no deserving disabled candidate should be denied admission to the undergraduate medical courses, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ordered,
"We further direct that the National Medical Commission shall forthwith and not later than within a period of two months from today and at any cost before the counselling for the 2025-2026 session commence, complete the process of revising the guidelines in light of judgments of this Court in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Sciences2 and Anmol v. Union of India & Ors.3 so that no deserving candidate in the PwBD category is denied admission into the MBBS course in spite of his/her/their entitlement. It must be ensured that systemic discrimination against persons with benchmark disabilities, whether direct or indirect, is eliminated and that the admission process upholds their right to equal opportunity and dignity."
"The constitutional promise of equality is not merely formal but substantive, requiring the State to take affirmative measures to ensure that PwD and PwBD can meaningfully participate in all spheres of life, including professional education. We emphasize that reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of our Constitution. When administrative authorities create arbitrary barriers that exclude qualified PwBD candidates, they not only violate statutory provisions but also perpetuate the historical injustice and stigmatisation. The fundamental rights and the dignity of PwD and PwBD candidates must be protected by ensuring that assessment of their capabilities is individualised, evidence-based, and free from stereotypical assumptions that have no scientific foundation," it further noted.
These observations were made by the top court bench while considering the plea by a medical aspirant with benchmark disabilities, who despite clearing the National Eligibility-Entrance Test (NEET) last year, was denied MBBS admission due to his disability. The petitioner student, Kabir Paharia, has a congenital absence of multiple fingers in both hands as well as involvement of left foot (2nd and 3rd toe). His disability percentage was assessed at 42%. He belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that after appearing in the NEET UG 2024 exam as an SCPwD category candidate, the petitioner's disability percentage was recorded at 42% as per his Disability Certificate dated 9th December, 2023, which is a benchmark disability as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
He secured a PwD category rank of 176, well above the cut-off score for the SC/EWS-PwD category and became eligible for the next stage in the admission process, which required issuance of a Certificate of Disability for NEET Admissions from a designated Disability Certification Centre.
Accordingly, he approached Vardhman Mahavir Medical College- Safdarjung Hospital, a recognized Disability Certification Centre in New Delhi on 16th August 2024. However, allegedly, despite the VMMC-SJ Hospital quantifying his disability at 68% in the NEET Disability Certificate dated 19.08.2024 i.e. within the permissible disability range of 40% to 80%, the said Hospital concluded that the appellant was not eligible to pursue medical courses.
Challenging this, the appellant approached the Single Judge bench of the High Court, which directed the formation of a Medical Board at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi to independently assess the nature and extent of appellant’s functional disability, as well as to determine whether his condition meets the requirements necessary for being eligible to pursue MBBS course. However, the Medical Board concluded in its report dated 6th September 2024 that the petitioner's disability made him ineligible to pursue the MBBS course. Based on this, the Single Judge dismissed the plea on 10th September 2024.
When the petitioner challenged the order before the Division bench of the Delhi High Court, the bench recently clarified that courts can interfere with the medical opinion of the Medical Disability Board/Disability Assessment Board only when such reports lack clarity regarding detailed reasons.
Consequently, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court bench and petitioner's counsel argued that the Delhi High Court's order and the decisions of both the Medical Boards were inherently flawed as neither the medical authorities nor the High Court duly adverted to the crucial concepts of assistive devices and reasonable accommodation to which the petitioner was entitled, under the Rights of Persons and Disabilities Act, 2016.
It was argued that the petitioner's academic excellence, his performance in NEET exan, high placement in merit had all been overlooked. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court orders in the cases of Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Sciences, and Anmol vs Union of India, where the Court had granted relief to medical aspirants having more critical conditions.
On the other hand, the counsel for Union of India and National Medical Commission (NMC) submitted that NMC was under the process of revising its guidelines in compliance with the judgments in the cases of Om Rathod (supra) and Anmol (supra). Three meetings have already taken place, and the process is expected to be finalised before counselling for the next academic session commences. They thus urged that the petitioner will not be prejudiced, if the consideration of this matter is deferred till the new guidelines are put in place.
Previously, the Supreme Court bench had held that merely because the disability guidelines were currently being revised by the National Medical Commission (NMC), the fate of medical aspirants could not hang in limbo. With this observation, the Court had recently directed AIIMS Delhi to set up a fresh medical board and assess the petitioner's eligibility for medical admission. The bench had also specified that the Medical Board should comprise five doctors/specialists, and one of the Board members should be a specialist in locomotor disabilities and one member should be a Neuro-Physician.
Consequently, the candidate was subjected to an extensive review assessment by a Medical Board constituted at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The report dated 24th April, 2025, prepared by the AIIMS Medical Board, stated that the petitioner "has a significant absence of multiple digits in both hands (specifically, the index and middle fingers on the right hand, and the index, middle, and ring fingers on the left hand) as well as in the left foot (notably, the second and third toes), which is attributed to a birth complication as documented in the available medical records. His condition is deemed non-progressive, and the locomotor disability is classified as permanent. The neurological examination showed normal strength in the existing limbs and digits, with intact sensations and good coordination of the existing limbs and digits."
"He demonstrated functional adaptation using his existing digits during these tasks. However, the board observed that he faced minor challenges while attempting to put on the sterilized standard gloves. He had slight coordination problems and delays caused by the lack of fingers and empty finger slots in the gloves. An evaluation by an occupational therapist validated his independence in activities of daily living (ADLs)," the report further mentioned.
Perusing the report, the top court bench noted that the appellant successfully demonstrated skilled techniques in the simulation laboratory including chest compressions, intravenous cannulation, assembly of a laryngoscope, intubation and suturing.
"The Medical Board, in its report, observed that the appellant demonstrated the functional adaptation using his existing digits during these tasks. The only minor challenge, which the appellant faced during the entire procedure, was putting on the sterilized standard gloves," the bench noted.
"We feel that the mindset must change and this trivial aberration, by no stretch of imagination, can be a ground to deny admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG course, when he is otherwise qualified and scored exceeding high rank in the NEET-UG 2024," the bench observed, further noting that a candidate who stood much below the appellant in merit had been allotted a reserved seat at AIIMS, New Delhi.
Accordingly, the bench held that denying an MBBS seat to the petitioner was grossly illegal.
"Manifestly, in view of the observations made by us in the order dated 2nd April, 2025 and the consequent successful assessment of the appellant by the Medical Board, AIIMS, New Delhi vide report dated 24th April, 2025, the denial of admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG course was grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such action not only reflects institutional bias and systemic discrimination but also undermines the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination enshrined in our constitutional framework. The constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that person with disabilities (for short ‘PwD’) and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities," it observed.
Regarding the admission of a candidate with a lower rank to AIIMS Delhi, the ASG affirmed the appellant's assertion. She further submitted that as the appellant was successfully assessed by the AIIMS Medical Board, he can be afforded admission in MBBS UG course against the Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the AIIMS, New Delhi in the forthcoming counselling session of 2025-2026.
Taking note of this submission, the bench observed,
"Taking consideration of the fact that the 2024- 2025 academic session must have progressed significantly and thus it would not be expedient to grant admission to the appellant in the said session. We accordingly direct that the appellant shall be allocated a seat in the MBBS UG course 2025 against the Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the All-India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, in the forthcoming academic session."
"In backdrop of the factual matrix narrated supra and the comparative higher merit secured by the appellant in the NEET-UG 2024 examination, we make it clear that the appellant shall not be required to undergo the NEET-UG 2025 examination," it further clarified.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/kabir-paharia-vs-national-medical-commission-285736.pdf
