Supreme Court calls for sensitivity in admission of disabled candidates to medical courses

The Supreme Court has urged the Union government and the National Medical Commission (NMC) to adopt a more empathetic approach towards disabled candidates who wish to pursue a career in medicine. It ordered the admission of a candidate with 44% speech and language disability, emphasising that people with physical disabilities should not be denied opportunities on the basis of rigid rules.

The ruling is in line with the Supreme Court’s progressive stance on the rights of people with disabilities in recent years. (HT PHOTO)

A bench headed by Justice Bhushan R Gavai on Tuesday expressed concern over the strict and outdated disability categorisation that governs admissions to medical colleges, emphasising that the authorities need to handle such cases with greater sensitivity. “You should be more sensitive to these issues. If they are fit to pursue their studies, they should not be forced to approach this court,” the bench, also comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and K V Viswanathan, said. The court pleaded with the authorities not to rely solely on strict cut-off criteria to prevent able candidates from pursuing their dreams.

A candidate with 44% speech and language disability was denied admission due to the rigid NMC rule that prevents candidates with more than 40% speech and language disability from being eligible for medical courses. The Supreme Court had constituted a medical board to assess the suitability of the candidate in response to the petition filed by the candidate. The board’s report to the court confirmed the candidate’s fitness to undergo the course. The bench accepted the board’s report and allowed the applicant to be admitted to the MBBS programme.

The judges told NMC lawyer, senior advocate Gaurav Sharma and a lawyer representing the federal government that denying admission to disabled candidates in courses on the basis of inflexible rules may not stand the test of constitutionality and justice.

Justice Viswanathan recalled a similar case involving a candidate who was denied admission to medical school because of color blindness. In that case, the court also lifted the hard restriction, allowing the candidate to continue in medical school.

“…all the senior doctors on the panel deciding whether colour blindness should be an absolute handicap were very understanding and helpful. You have to be more sensitive,” observed Justice Viswanathan, recounting his role as amicus curiae in the case when he was practising as a senior advocate.

Sharma replied that the NMC follows the rules of the health ministry. He added that there is still a conflict between the health and social justice ministries. Sharma noted that the social justice ministry often supports disabled candidates. He said the health ministry tends to impose stricter rules. “Let us let the two ministries talk and find a solution in the larger interest of the candidates,” suggested Sharma.

The judges then asked a federal government lawyer to address the issue and work with the two ministries to consider creating rules that would better serve the interests of disabled applicants.

The ruling is consistent with the Supreme Court’s progressive stance on disability rights in recent years. Several landmark rulings have opened doors for disabled people to careers in fields previously considered off-limits.

In April 2023, another Supreme Court bench allowed a candidate with a 55 percent speech and language disability to be admitted to medical school, setting a strong precedent.

The court has made significant interventions in the education of visually impaired and colorblind persons.

In a 2017 ruling, the court allowed colorblind candidates to pursue medical studies, striking down outdated rules that imposed an outright ban. In 2022, the court allowed colorblind candidates to be admitted to the prestigious Film and Television Institute of India, noting that art and filmmaking must be given the widest scope, rather than being confined to conformist mores. It allowed visually impaired candidates to take judicial exams and other professional courses, reinforcing the idea that disability should not be seen as a barrier to intellectual and professional competence.

The court rulings are in line with the broader objectives of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which emphasises the need to promote inclusive education and career opportunities for persons with disabilities. They also underscore the need for more comprehensive reforms in India’s educational and career frameworks to accommodate candidates with disabilities.