Supreme Court Upholds Medical Admission Standards for PwD Candidates: Vidhi Himmat Katariya vs. State of Gujarat (2019)

Date of the Judgment: October 4, 2019

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Arun Mishra, J., M.R. Shah, J., B.R. Gavai, J.

Can the rules for medical admissions be changed mid-process, especially for candidates with disabilities? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning MBBS admissions for the academic year 2019-20. The court had to decide whether revised eligibility criteria for Persons with Disabilities (PwD), introduced after the admission process had begun, should apply to the petitioners. The bench, consisting of Justices Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah, and B.R. Gavai, delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case involves several students who applied for MBBS courses under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category for the academic year 2019-20. These students, suffering from locomotor disabilities, sought admission under the 5% reservation mandated by Section 32 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The admission process began in late October 2018, with online applications accepted from November 20, 2018, to November 30, 2018. The NEET (UG) 2019 examination was held on May 5, 2019, and results were declared on June 5, 2019. However, during this period, the Medical Council of India (MCI) amended its regulations on February 4, 2019, introducing Appendix ‘H’ which specified a minimum disability benchmark of 40% and additional criteria for locomotor disability, including ‘both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion’ as essential for eligibility. The petitioners were deemed ineligible by the Medical Board and the Medical Appellate Board for not meeting the new criteria, leading them to file writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners, after being declared ineligible by the Medical Board, appealed to the Medical Appellate Board, which also upheld their ineligibility. Subsequently, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking to be considered eligible for MBBS admissions under the PwD category.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions at play in this case are:

• Section 32 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: This section mandates a reservation of not less than 5% in government educational institutions for persons with disabilities.
• Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations: The MCI, through its notifications, regulates medical education, including the criteria for admissions. The Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 were amended by notification dated 04.02.2019, adding Appendix ‘H’.
• Appendix ‘H’ of the MCI Regulations (dated 04.02.2019): This appendix specifies the minimum degree of disability (40%) and additional criteria for locomotor disability, requiring ‘both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion’ for eligibility in MBBS courses under the PwD quota.

The 2016 Act aims to provide a framework for ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities. The MCI regulations are framed to ensure that medical professionals are adequately skilled. The interplay of these provisions determines the eligibility criteria for PwD candidates seeking medical admissions.

Arguments

Arguments by the Petitioners:

• The petitioners argued that the eligibility criteria should be determined based on the regulations prevailing when the admission process commenced, i.e., November 1, 2018, before the amendment of February 4, 2019. They contended that the MCI Regulations of 2017 should apply, not the amended regulations with Appendix ‘H’.
• They relied on the principle that the rules of the game cannot be changed midway, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, which held that EWS reservations could not be applied mid-selection process.
• The petitioners further argued that they meet the 40-80% disability criteria and that the requirement of ‘both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion’ was applied arbitrarily by the State Government without considering individual capabilities.
• They submitted that the State Government did not consider that PwD candidates would have certain limitations, including those related to the parameters in Appendix ‘H’. They detailed how each petitioner had good muscle power, could perform daily activities with modifications, and had functional dominant hands.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Gujarat and Medical Council of India):

• The State of Gujarat argued that the petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria as per the notification dated February 4, 2019. They stated that the Medical Board, Medical Appellate Board, and even AIIMS, New Delhi, had deemed the petitioners ineligible.
• The Medical Council of India (MCI) contended that the amendments made on February 4, 2019, were based on the recommendations of an expert committee and were essential to ensure that medical students possess the necessary skills. They argued that the relevant date for determining eligibility was when the petitioners sought admission, not when the admission process began.
• MCI emphasized that the eligibility of persons with specified disabilities to pursue medical courses has to be in accordance with Appendix ‘H’, which was added to the regulations.
• They argued that candidates seeking admission under the PwD quota must appear before the Medical Board at the time of seeking admission and after the NEET results are declared.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue before the court was:

1. Whether the revised eligibility criteria for PwD candidates for MBBS admissions, as per the notification dated 04.02.2019 and Appendix ‘H’, should be applied to the petitioners, or whether the criteria prevailing before the amendment should apply.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the present case did not involve changing the rules mid-selection process, as the amended regulations were in place before the actual admissions.
• Section 32 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: The Court acknowledged the importance of the 5% reservation for PwD but emphasized that eligibility criteria must be met.
• Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations: The Court upheld the MCI’s authority to regulate medical education and set eligibility criteria, including the amendments made on 04.02.2019.
• Appendix ‘H’ of the MCI Regulations (dated 04.02.2019): The Court upheld the validity of the eligibility criteria specified in Appendix ‘H’, including the requirement for ‘both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion’ for locomotor disability.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Expert Opinion: The court heavily relied on the opinions of the Medical Board, Medical Appellate Board, and the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi, all of which deemed the petitioners ineligible. The court emphasized that it would not sit as an appellate authority over the opinions of experts in the field.
• Timing of the Amendment: The court clarified that the relevant date for determining eligibility is when the candidates seek admission, not when the admission process begins. Since the notification dated 04.02.2019 was in place before the actual admissions, it was deemed applicable.
• Importance of Skills for Medical Professionals: The court acknowledged the MCI’s submission that medical students must possess necessary skills and expertise. The amended regulations were designed to ensure that candidates admitted to medical courses under the PwD category are capable of acquiring these skills.

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the legal principle that eligibility is determined at the time of admission, not at the start of the process, and that expert opinions in specialized fields should be given due weight. The court’s analysis was more focused on the legal and procedural aspects than on the individual factual circumstances of the petitioners.

Key Takeaways

• Eligibility Criteria: The relevant date for determining eligibility for medical admissions under the PwD category is the date when the candidates seek admission, not when the admission process begins.
• Expert Opinions: Courts will generally defer to the opinions of expert bodies, such as medical boards, in matters requiring specialized knowledge, absent any allegations of mala fides.
• Importance of Skills: The MCI’s regulations are designed to ensure that medical professionals possess the necessary skills and expertise, and these regulations will be upheld by the courts.
• No Mid-Process Change: The court clarified that this was not a case of changing the rules mid-process, as the amended regulations were in place before the actual admissions.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the eligibility criteria for medical admissions under the PwD category are to be determined based on the regulations in force at the time of admission, and not at the commencement of the admission process. This clarifies the application of amended regulations and emphasizes the importance of expert opinions in specialized fields. The court did not change the previous position of law but rather clarified the relevant date for applicability of the regulations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the decision of the State Government and the Medical Council of India. The court ruled that the revised eligibility criteria for PwD candidates, introduced via the notification dated February 4, 2019, and Appendix ‘H’ to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, were applicable to the petitioners. The court emphasized that the relevant date for determining eligibility is the date of admission, and not the start of the admission process. The court also deferred to the expert opinions of the Medical Board, Medical Appellate Board, and AIIMS, New Delhi, which had found the petitioners ineligible. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to established eligibility criteria and the role of expert opinions in specialized fields.