Supreme Court Allows MBBS Admission for Student with 44% Speech Disability: Omkar Ramchandra Gond vs. Union of India (2024)

Date of the Judgment: October 15, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 775

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Aravind Kumar, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a student with a speech and language disability be denied admission to a medical course solely based on a quantified disability percentage? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the need for a nuanced approach that considers individual capabilities rather than relying solely on disability percentages. This case highlights the importance of inclusive education and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. The judgment was authored by Justice K.V. Viswanathan, with Justices B.R. Gavai and Aravind Kumar concurring.

Case Background

Omkar Ramchandra Gond, the appellant, is from a middle-class family in Latur, Maharashtra. He had an impressive academic record, scoring 97.2% in his tenth standard. He aspired to become a doctor. However, he has a speech and language disability, diagnosed as Hypernasality with Misarticulation due to a repaired bilateral cleft palate. He was certified to have a 45% permanent disability (some reports mention 44%) as per a Disability Certificate dated 18.05.2017.

On 18.02.2024, he applied for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to the MBBS course, claiming reservation under both the Persons with Disability (PwD) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) categories. His application was provisional, subject to the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

He qualified the NEET exam held on 05.05.2024. He applied for the Centralized Admission Process (CAP) Round-I counseling, claiming reservation under the PwD and OBC categories. His name appeared at 42091 in the provisional merit list published on 26.08.2024. According to the information brochure, candidates with disabilities had to submit a disability certificate issued for 2024 and undergo a medical examination at the Disability Assessment Board.

On 16.08.2024, the appellant went to the Designated Disability Certification Centre at Sir JJ Group of Hospitals. The center certified his speech and language disability as 44% (or 45%). However, based on NMC norms, he was deemed ineligible to pursue the medical course and obtain PwD reservation. This was due to a 2019 amendment by the Medical Council of India (MCI), which stated that persons with 40% or more disability were ineligible for the medical course.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a writ petition (W.P. Stamp No. 24821 of 2024) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the notification dated 13.05.2019 and the certificate issued by the Disability Certification Centre. He argued that the Medical Council of India/NMC could not set eligibility criteria that negate the benefits under the RPwD Act. He sought interim relief to participate in the centralized admission process without considering the disability certificate.

On 29.08.2024, the High Court adjourned the matter to 19.09.2024 without granting any interim order. Given the urgency of the admission deadlines, the appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking urgent reliefs.

On 02.09.2024, the Supreme Court directed that a seat be kept vacant for the appellant. The Court also directed the Dean, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College and Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, to form a Medical Board to examine whether the appellant’s speech and language disability would hinder his pursuit of the MBBS degree. Ultimately, the task was entrusted to Maulana Azad Medical College, Government of NCT of Delhi, which submitted a report stating that the appellant’s disability would not impede his studies.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the following legal provisions:

• Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy: This article directs the State to make effective provisions for securing the right to education, including for persons with disabilities.

  “The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.”

• The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act): This Act aims to implement the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Key provisions include:
  • Section 2(m): Defines “inclusive education” as a system where students with and without disabilities learn together, with teaching methods adapted to meet diverse learning needs.

    “inclusive education” means a system of education wherein students with and without disability learn together and the system of teaching and learning is suitably adapted to meet the learning needs of different types of students with disabilities;

  • Section 2(r): Defines “person with benchmark disability” as someone with not less than 40% of a specified disability.

    “person with benchmark disability” means a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority;

  • Section 2(y): Defines “reasonable accommodation” as necessary modifications and adjustments to ensure persons with disabilities can enjoy their rights equally.

    “reasonable accommodation” means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others;

  • Section 3: Ensures equality and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities.

    (1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others.
    (2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilise the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing appropriate environment.
    (3) No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
    (4) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty only on the ground of disability.
    (5) The appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.

  • Section 15: Mandates the designation of authorities to support persons with disabilities in exercising their legal capacity.

    (1) The appropriate Government shall designate one or more authorities to mobilise the community and create social awareness to support persons with disabilities in exercise of their legal capacity.
    (2) The authority designated under sub-section (1) shall take measures for setting up suitable support arrangements to exercise legal capacity by persons with disabilities living in institutions and those with high support needs and any other measures as may be required.

  • Section 32: Provides for reservation of not less than 5% of seats for persons with benchmark disabilities in higher education institutions.

    (1) All Government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.
    (2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of higher education.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the Medical Council of India (MCI)/National Medical Commission (NMC) is not empowered to lay down eligibility criteria that nullify the benefits provided under the RPwD Act.
• He contended that the notification dated 13.05.2019, and the certificate issued by the Disability Certification Centre, which deemed him ineligible for the MBBS course solely based on his disability exceeding 40%, are discriminatory.
• The appellant asserted that there was no evidence to suggest he was incompetent to pursue the course.
• The appellant’s counsel argued that the 40% benchmark disability rule was arbitrary and failed to consider individual capabilities.
• The appellant relied on the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution and the RPwD Act.

Union of India and NMC’s Submissions:

• The respondents contended that the NMC’s regulations were in line with the need to maintain standards in medical education.
• They argued that the 40% disability benchmark was a reasonable threshold for determining eligibility for the medical course.
• The respondents relied on the MCI/NMC guidelines which specified that persons with 40% or more disability in speech and language were ineligible for the medical course.
• The respondents contended that the regulations were based on expert medical opinion and were necessary to ensure that only those capable of handling the rigors of the medical profession were admitted.

Submissions Table:

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in challenging the strict application of the 40% disability benchmark and emphasizing the need for individual assessment and reasonable accommodation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Merely because the disability is quantified at 44%/45%, should the appellant be disqualified to obtain admission under the PwD Category for the MBBS Course?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Gujarat and Another vs. Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad and Another, (1974 ) 4 SCC 656:* The Court used this case to explain the concept of over-inclusive classification and how it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 469:* The Court cited this case to emphasize the principle of rationality in equality and that a blanket non-consideration is not sustainable.
• Khandige Sham Bhat and Anr vs. Agricultural Income -tax Officer, Kasaragod, and Anr, AIR 1963 SC 591:* The Court relied on this case to highlight that a law must be scrutinized for its real impact and not just its facial equality.
• Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha & Ors. v s. Union of India & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 125:* The Court used this case to explain the concept of indirect discrimination and how it is as real as any other form of discrimination.
• Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr . vs. Union of India and Others , (2023) 2 SCC 209:* The Court referred to this case to highlight the fallacy of a one-size-fits-all approach to disability assessment.
• Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 856 of 2023:* The Court cited this case to emphasize the need for mitigating anomalies in disability assessment.
• Vikash Kumar v. UPSC & Others , (2021) 5 SCC 370:* The Court used this case to explain the principle of reasonable accommodation and the positive obligation of the State.
• Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 761:* The Court cited this case to emphasize the principles of non-discrimination and reasonable differentiation in equality.
• U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Samiti , U.P. v. Braj Kishore and others , (1988) 4 SCC 274:* The Court used this case to emphasize the importance of understanding the background and purpose of a law while interpreting it.
• Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency , (NTA) and others (2023) 2 SCC 286:* The Court cited this case to emphasize the importance of inclusive education for persons with disabilities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the rights of persons with disabilities, as enshrined in the RPwD Act and the Constitution. The Court emphasized that a rigid application of disability percentages without considering individual capabilities would be discriminatory. The Court also highlighted the importance of reasonable accommodation and inclusive education.

The Court was also influenced by the communication from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which directed the NMC to review its regulations and adopt a more inclusive approach. The Court commended the Union of India for issuing this communication and directed the NMC to comply with its requirements.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the regulations but rejected them as they did not align with the objectives of the RPwD Act and the principles of equality and non-discrimination. The Court emphasized that the regulations must be interpreted in a manner that furthers the inclusion of persons with disabilities.

The Court’s decision was to allow the appeal and direct the admission of the appellant. The Court held that a quantified disability per se will not disentitle a candidate to admission under the PwD category.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the following:

1. The appellant shall be admitted to the MBBS course under the PwD category.
2. The Medical Council of India (MCI)/National Medical Commission (NMC) is directed to review its regulations to ensure they are in line with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
3. The NMC is directed to adopt a more inclusive approach that considers individual capabilities rather than relying solely on disability percentages.

Impact of the Judgment:

• The judgment sets a precedent for cases involving persons with disabilities seeking admission to medical courses.
• It emphasizes the need for reasonable accommodation and inclusive education for persons with disabilities.
• It directs the NMC to review its regulations to ensure they are consistent with the RPwD Act.
• It promotes a shift from a rigid, percentage-based approach to a more nuanced, individual-centric assessment of disability.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment can be summarized as follows:

1. A quantified disability percentage alone cannot be the sole criterion for denying admission to a medical course under the PwD category.
2. The Medical Council of India (MCI)/National Medical Commission (NMC) cannot lay down eligibility criteria that negate the benefits provided under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
3. The RPwD Act mandates reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, which includes assessing individual capabilities rather than relying on a rigid disability percentage.
4. Regulations must be interpreted in a manner that furthers the inclusion of persons with disabilities and aligns with the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
5. The State has a positive obligation to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to ensure they can exercise their rights equally with others.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Omkar Ramchandra Gond vs. Union of India is a landmark ruling that reinforces the rights of persons with disabilities to access education and pursue their aspirations. The Court’s emphasis on individual assessment, reasonable accommodation, and inclusive education marks a significant shift from a rigid, percentage-based approach to a more nuanced, human-centric perspective. This judgment not only provides relief to the appellant but also sets a precedent for future cases, ensuring that persons with disabilities are not discriminated against solely based on the quantification of their disability. The direction to the NMC to review its regulations is a crucial step towards aligning medical education standards with the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution and the RPwD Act.

The case underscores the importance of interpreting laws in a manner that promotes social justice and inclusion, and it serves as a reminder that disability is not a barrier to success when reasonable accommodations are provided and individual capabilities are recognized.