Mere Existence Of Benchmark Disability Won't Disqualify Candidate From MBBS Course : Supreme Court
15 Oct 2024 1:48 PM
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 15) held that the mere existence of a benchmark disability is not a reason to bar a person from pursuing medical education unless there is a report by the disability assessment board that that candidate is incapacitated from studying the MBBS course.
Mere quantification of the disability will not disbar a candidate and the capacity to pursue the course has to be examined by the disability assessment board.
The negative opinion of the disability assessment board is not final and can be reviewed by the judicial bodies till appellate forums are created, the Court added.
"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. Disability board should also state reasons in the event it concluding that the candidate is not eligible in pursuing the course. Pending creation of appellate bodies, the negative opinion of the disability assessment boards would be amenable to challenge in judicial review proceedings. The Courts seized of the matter should refer the candidate to any premier medical institute having facility for an independent opinion and relief to the candidate would be granted or denied based on the opinion of the said medical institution," the Court held.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar KV Viswanathan was pronouncing the judgment in a petition filed by a candidate with 40-45% speech and language disability seeking MBBS admission. On September 18, the Court had passed an order allowing the candidate MBBS admission after a medical board constituted by the Court opined that he could pursue medical education. Today, the bench delivered the detailed judgment giving reasons for its order.
The petitioner challenged the Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 1997 which barred persons with equal to or more than 40% disability from MBBS course.
Mere existence of disability will not disqualify the candidate : SC
The judgment pronounced by Justice Viswanathan held that "merely because the quantification of disability for speech and language is 40% or above, a candidate does not forfeit his right to stake a claim for admission."
The judgment held that such an interpretation would render the Graduate Medical Education Regulation "overbroad" for treating unequals equally.
"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 held that the regulation, at first blush, may appear to be non-discriminatory as it was uniformly barring all persons with 40% or more disability. However, a Court of law has to probe whether beneath the veneer of equality, is there any breach of Article 14.
The Court expressed the hope that in the revised regulations and guidelines which the National Medical Commission will issue, an "inclusive attitude" will be taken towards persons with disability from all categories, based on the concept of "reasonable accommodation" recognized under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. In this regard, the Court commended the Union of India for the communication issued by the Ministry of Social Justice to the National Medical Commission.
The approach of government instrumentalities and private entities should be how best they can grant an opportunity to candidates with disabilities and the approach should not be to how to disqualify them, the Court reminded.
The concept of "reasonable accommodation" would compel the Court to interpret the Regulations in a manner that furthers the objectives of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The mandate of the law is to ensure the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society as equal citizens.
Disability assessment boards must apply mind
The judgment further held :
"Disability assessment boards are not just monotonous automation to just look at the quantified benchmark disabilities as set out in the certificate of disability to cast aside a candidate. Such an approach would be antithetical to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and all canons of justice, equality and good conscience.
The Disability assessment boards are obliged to assess the further question as to whether the candidate, in the opinion of the experts, would be eligible to pursue the course or in other words whether the disability will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question."
The judgment also referred to some "illustrious sons and daughters of India" who have braved adversities and achieved great achievements overcoming disabilities. Bharatanatyam dancer Sudha Chandran, Arunima Singh who climbed Mount Everest, prominent sports personality Boniface Prabhu, Dr.Satendra Singh founder of "Infinite Ability" were mentioned as some of the shining examples of illustrious individuals from India.
"The word would have been so much poorer if Homer, Milton, Mozart, Beethoven, Byron and many more would not have been allowed to realize their full potential," the judgment stated in its concluding part.
The Court directed that the candidate be admitted to the seat, which was earlier directed to be kept vacant.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge against the order of the Bombay High Court which denied interim relief against the cancellation of the admission to the MBBS Course.
Before the High Court, the petitioner challenged the 'Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 1997' framed by the Medical Council of India holding that persons with equal to or more than 40% disability would not be eligible to pursue MBBS course. He contended that the regulations were contrary to Section 32 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and sought a declaration that such regulations were ultra-vires Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), 21 and 29(2) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner before the bench submitted that his admission seat had been cancelled as he suffered from speech and language impairment of 44-45%. He submitted that he did not suffer from any 'functional infirmities or disqualifications' which would have caused hindrances in completing his education. The petitioner stated that the results of the Centralized Admission Process (CAP) Round 1 would be declared on August 30, while the High Court has inconsiderably adjourned the matter to September 19.
On September 2, the Court had directed the Dean, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College, Pune to constitute a Medical Board consisting of one or more specialists to examine whether the speech and language disability of the petitioner would come in his way in pursuing the MBBS Degree Course. Following the positive report given by the Court regarding the candidate's capability to undergo medical education, the Court allowed him admission.
During the hearing, the Court orally stressed the need for a more flexible and sensitive approach towards allowing medical education for persons with disabilities. The Court will release a separate judgment with detailed reasons.
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
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
