The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday (October 15) that the mere existence of a benchmark disability is not a reason to prohibit a person from pursuing medical studies unless there is a report from the medical committee. disability assessment indicating that this candidate is incapable of studying the MBBS course. .

Mere quantification of disability will not disqualify a candidate and the ability to continue the course must be examined by the disability assessment committee.

The negative opinion of the disability evaluation commission is not final and can be re-examined by the judicial authorities until the creation of appeal forums, added the Court.

“The mere existence of a benchmark disability will not disqualify a candidate from being eligible for the course. The Disability Committee assessing the candidate’s disability must record positively whether or not the candidate’s disability will hinder the candidate’s pursuit of the course. The commission for persons with disabilities should also justify its decision in the event that it concludes that the candidate is not eligible to continue the course. Pending the creation of appeal bodies, the negative opinion of the commissions. The disability assessment could be challenged in a judicial review procedure of the case should refer the candidate to any leading medical institute having the opportunity to obtain an independent opinion and redress of the candidate. would be granted or denied based on the opinion of said medical institution, ” the Court ruled.

A bench including Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar KV Viswanathan pronounced the judgment in a petition filed by a candidate suffering from 40-45% speech and language impairment and seeking admission to MBBS. On September 18, the Court had passed an order allowing the candidate’s admission to MBBS after a medical committee constituted by the Court found that he could pursue medical studies. Today, the judiciary delivered its detailed judgment, providing reasons for its order.

The petitioner challenged the Higher Medical Education Regulations, 1997, which barred persons with disabilities equal to or above 40% from pursuing MBBS courses.

The mere existence of a disability will not disqualify the applicant: SC

The judgment delivered by Justice Viswanathan held that “merely because the speech and language disability is 40% or more, a candidate does not lose his right to claim admission.”

The judgment ruled that such an interpretation would make the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations “too broad” to treat unequal people equally.

“A constitutional court examining the argument of discrimination has the mandate to determine whether substantive equality exists. The Court should not get carried away with a projection of facial equality,” Justice Viswanathan read in the judgment.

The Court found that the regulation, on its face, may appear non-discriminatory in that it uniformly prohibited all persons with a disability of 40% or more. However, a court must consider whether, beneath the veneer of equality, there is a violation of Article 14.

The Court expressed hope that in the revised regulations and guidelines to be issued by the National Medical Commission, an “inclusive attitude” will be adopted towards persons with disabilities of all categories, based on the concept of “reasonable accommodation” recognized by law to freedom. Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. In this regard, the Court commended the Union of India for the communication sent by the Ministry of Social Justice to the National Medical Commission.

The approach of government agencies and private entities should be how best they can grant opportunity to disabled candidates and the approach should not be how to disqualify them, the Court reiterated.

The concept of “reasonable accommodation” would require the Court to interpret the Regulations in a manner that furthers the objectives of the Disability Rights 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 commissions must show spirit

The judgment further says:

“The disability assessment committees are not a simple monotonous automation which simply examines the quantified reference disabilities as stated in the disability certificate to exclude a candidate. Such an approach would be contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and all the canons of justice, equality and good conscience.

Disability assessment committees are required to assess the additional question of whether the candidate, in the opinion of the experts, would be eligible to continue the training or in other words whether or not the disability will prevent them from continuing. his studies. the course in question.”

The judgment also refers to certain “illustrious sons and daughters of India” who have braved adversity and made great achievements by overcoming handicaps. Bharatanatyam dancer Sudha Chandran, Arunima Singh who climbed Mount Everest, eminent sports personality Boniface Prabhu, Dr. Satendra Singh, founder of ‘Infinite Ability’, have been mentioned as some of the shining examples of illustrious individuals of India.

“The world would have been a much poorer place if Homer, Milton, Mozart, Beethoven, Byron and many others had not had the opportunity to realize their full potential,” the judgment stated in its final part.

The Court ordered that the candidate be admitted to the seat, which had earlier been declared vacant.