Mere Existence Of Benchmark Disability Will Not Disqualify A Candidate From Being Eligible For MBBS course: SC On Admission Of A Candidate With 40% Speech and Language Disability
Today (October 15, 2024), the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing a petition filed by a candidate with 40-45% speech and language disability seeking MBBS admission. While hearing the matter, the three-judge bench of the SC constituting Justice BR Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the mere existence of benchmark disability is not a reason to disqualify a candidate from being eligible for the MBBS course unless there is a report by the disability assessment board that candidate is incapacitated from pursuing medical education. The SC, in its judgment, said, “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.”
Earlier on September 18, 2024, the SC bench allowed the candidate to be admitted to the MBBS course after considering the opinion, of a medical board constituted by this court. Today, the Supreme Court delivered a detailed judgment in the case. While pronouncing the judgment, the SC emphasized that the National Medical Commission’s (NMC’s) approach should not be how to disqualify candidates. It said, “The approach should not be as to how best to disqualify the candidates and make it difficult for them to pursue and realize their educational goals.. Concept of reasonable accommodation would be purposive construction of NMC guidelines. Reasonable accommodation under 2(y) should not be considered narrowly for the ones with assistive devices. It will further the objectives under the Directive Principles of State Policy.” Moreover, the bench pointed out, “It should be borne in mind that the RPwD (Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Act which was enacted to give effect to the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities - was with the objective of granting persons with disabilities full and effective participation and inclusion in society, grant them equal opportunity and to show respect for their inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make their own choices.”
Furthermore, the SC bench said, “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 top court also listed some of the shining daughters and sons of India who achieved great achievements despite disabilities. It said, “we will do well to recollect that acclaimed Bharatanatyam dancer Sudha Chandran, Arunima Sinha who conquered Mount Everest, prominent sports personality, H. Boniface Prabhu, entrepreneur Srikanth Bolla and Dr. Satendra Singh, the founder of ‘Infinite Ability’, are some of the shining daughters and sons from a long and illustrious list of individuals in India who scaled extraordinary heights braving all adversities.”
The bench added, “The world would have been so much the poorer if Homer, Milton, Mozart, Beethoven, Byron and many more would not have been allowed to realize their full potential.” Lastly, the SC concluded “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.” It also said, “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.” Therefore, the SC bench confirmed the admission and directed the concerned authorities to treat the admission as a valid admission in the eye of law.
