On Tuesday, October 15, the Supreme Court ruled that having a benchmark disability alone cannot disqualify an individual from pursuing medical education.

A candidate can only be barred from studying the MBBS course if a report from the disability assessment board indicates that they are incapacitated for such studies.

Simply quantifying a disability does not disqualify a candidate; instead, the disability assessment board must evaluate their ability to pursue the course.

The Supreme Court stated that a negative opinion from the disability assessment board is not conclusive and can be subject to review by judicial bodies until appellate forums are established.

''Mere existence of benchmark disability will not disqualify a candidate from being eligible for the course. The disability board assessing the disability of the candidate must positively record whether the disability of the candidate will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course.''

A bench consisting of Justices B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K.V. Viswanathan delivered the judgment in a petition filed by a candidate with a 40-45% speech and language disability seeking admission to the MBBS program. On September 18, the Court had previously granted the candidate admission after a medical board, appointed by the Court, concluded that he was capable of pursuing medical education. Today, the bench provided a detailed judgment explaining the rationale behind its earlier order.

The petitioner contested the Graduate Medical Education Regulation of 1997, which prohibited individuals with disabilities of 40% or greater from enrolling in the MBBS program.

The judgment delivered by Justice Viswanathan stated that "a candidate does not forfeit his right to claim admission merely because the quantification of disability for speech and language is 40% or above." The ruling emphasized that interpreting the regulation in this way would make the Graduate Medical Education Regulation "overbroad" by treating unequal cases as if they were equal.

"A constitutional court examining the plea of discrimination is mandated to consider whether real equality exists. The Court should not be carried away by a projection of facial equality," Justice Viswanathan read out from the judgment.

The Court observed that, on the surface, the regulation might seem non-discriminatory since it uniformly bars all individuals with disabilities of 40% or more. However, it asserted that a court must investigate whether, beneath this facade of equality, there is a violation of Article 14.

The Court expressed optimism that the revised regulations and guidelines to be issued by the National Medical Commission will adopt an "inclusive attitude" towards individuals with disabilities across all categories, in line with the concept of "reasonable accommodation" as recognized under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. In this context, the Court commended the Union of India for the communication sent by the Ministry of Social Justice to the National Medical Commission.

The Court reminded that the focus of government agencies and private entities should be on finding ways to provide opportunities for candidates with disabilities, rather than on disqualifying them. It noted that the concept of "reasonable accommodation" would guide the interpretation of the Regulations in a way that aligns with the objectives of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

The law mandates the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society, ensuring that they are treated as equal citizens.

During the hearing, the Court emphasized the necessity for a more flexible and sensitive approach in permitting individuals with disabilities to pursue medical education. It indicated that a separate judgment detailing its reasons will be released soon.

Advocates S B Talekar, Pradnya Talekar along with Pulkit Agarwal (AoR) appeared for the petitioner before the Supreme Court whereas Advocate Gaurav Sharma appeared for the National Medical Commission.

Case Details: Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 39448/2024