In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasized that having a benchmark disability does not automatically disqualify a candidate from being considered for admission to educational institutions. The ruling came in the case of Omkar Ramchandra Gond, an aspiring medical student from Maharashtra, and established critical guidelines for the assessment of disabled candidates’ eligibility.
The bench, consisting of Justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K V Viswanathan, stated that the mere presence of a quantified disability should not bar a candidate if the Disability Assessment Board (DAB) determines that the candidate is capable of pursuing the intended course. This judgment reinforces the constitutional goal to secure educational rights for persons with disabilities, recognizing the necessity to integrate them effectively within the academic sphere.
Justice Viswanathan, authoring the verdict, highlighted the importance of DABs providing clear reasoning if they conclude a candidate cannot pursue a course due to their disability. This decision is a response to the previous ruling of the Bombay High Court, which had refused to allow Mr. Gond to enroll in an MBBS program despite his qualification in the NEET (UG)-24, due to his 45 percent speech and language disability.
The apex court criticized the regulatory framework under the 1997 Graduate Medical Education Regulations, pointing out that it created a peculiar scenario where people with less than 40% disability could pursue medical courses without being eligible for the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) quota, while those with disabilities of 40% or more were outright disqualified.
The court also mandated that pending the formulation of appropriate regulations by the National Medical Commission (NMC), the DABs must adhere to principles that facilitate rather than obstruct the educational aspirations of candidates with disabilities. It called for the NMC to expedite the creation of inclusive regulations and guidelines that align with technological advancements in aids and assistive devices, which can mitigate the effects of disabilities.
Furthermore, the court ordered that any negative decisions by the DABs be subject to judicial review, allowing candidates to challenge such decisions and seek an independent opinion from premier medical institutes.
This judgment not only sets aside the Bombay High Court’s previous order but also directs the NMC to ensure that their regulations for the academic year 2025-26 reflect an inclusive approach, embodying the concept of reasonable accommodation recognized in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act.
