CITATION: C.A. NO. 10611/2024
BEFORE: The Supreme Court of India
HON’BLE JUDGES/CORAM: B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Vishwanathan, JJ.
COUNSELS: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.B. Talekar, Pradnya Talekar, Advs., Pulkit Agarwal, AOR, Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Vibhu Tandon, Madhvi Ayyapan, Ajinkya Sanjay Kale, Shreyans Raniwala, Avnish Chaturvedi, Anubhav Lamba,
Mohd. Anas Chaudhary.
For Respondents/Defendant: Sharirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advs. And Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR.
CASE CATEGORY: Admission/Transfer to Engineering and Medical Colleges – Medical College Admission Matters
INTRODUCTION
The case of Omkar v. Union of India 2024, is a landmark case which has a significant impact on inclusive education and on the rights of people with disabilities in India. Concerns regarding the eligibility criteria of the PwD category applicants seeking admission to medical courses were addressed by the Supreme court of India.
Omkar Ramchand Gond who has a speech and language disability quantified at 44-45% according to the disability certification center qualified the medical entrance exam and had PwD Quota, but was rendered ineligible to pursue the medical course as per the national medical commission norms so he challenged the regulations of the national medical commission (NMC) that prevented him from being admitted to the MBBS program under the PwD Quota solely because of his disability percentage.
The case examined the interpretation of disability percentages and pointed out the importance of a more refined and personalized evaluation of candidates with disabilities.
CASE SUMMARY
The applicant Omkar, was a meritorious child as evident from his grade tenth result in which he had scored 97.02% and he also cleared his 12th grade with a first division.
Omkar had a speech and language disability and was certified to have 45% as permanent disability as per the disability certificate dated 18/05/2017.
He had applied to the NEET (UG), 2024 for admission to MBBS course from PwD and OBC category on 18/02/2024.
The application form had a disclaimer clause which stated that the eligibility under PwD category was to be governed as per the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines regarding admission of students with specified disabilities under the Rights of persons with disabilities act, 2016 (RPwD Act.)
The applicant appeared for the NEET (UG) exam on 5/5/2024 and qualified it. The Centralized Admission Process (CAP) round 1 counselling for admission was to be held on 20/08/2024. The applicant applied for the CAP round 1. It was mentioned in the information brochure that the students with disabilities needed to submit a disability certificate issued for the year 2024 and had to go medical examination at the disability assessment board.
So, he went for medical examination and after the medical examination from the disability assessment board, the appellant received a disability certificate that recorded his disability at 45% and which also indicated that he was not eligible to pursue a medical course according to the NMC guidelines.
According to the NMC guidelines the students having 40% permanent disability were prohibited from pursuing the MBBS course.
And according to Appendix H-1 of the Graduate Medical Regulations, 1997 amendment 2019, the candidates with less than 40% of benchmark disability could pursue MBBS courses but were ineligible for the 5% PwD Reservation which was provided under section 32 of the RPwD Act, 2016. While candidates with more than 40% were not eligible for the course at all.
Being disappointed, the applicant filed a petition in the Bombay High Court Contending that the medical council of India/NMC is not empowered to lay down eligibility criteria in such a manner as to altogether take away the benefits under the RPwD Act, he also challenged the certificate issued by the Disability Certification Centre rendering him ineligible for pursuing the MBBS Course only on the ground of disability exceeding 40% without anything more, the applicant also sought interim relief permitting him to participate in the centralized admission process in admission to MBBS Course without considering the certificate issued by the Disability Certification Centre- Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, but the High Court didn’t granted him the relief sought and rejected his petition.
The time for selection of medical college was approaching. In order to participate in the counselling process for admission, the appellant sought urgent relief, so he appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
An interim order was issued by the Supreme Court on Sept. 2, 2024, requesting that the seat that the appellant would have been entitled to if they were eligible be kept vacant.
The court instructed Maulana Azad Medical College to create a Medical Board to determine if the Appellant’s speech and language disability would prevent him from pursuing MBBS.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
For the purpose of this case the following are the important provisions of the Rights of persons with disabilities act, 2016 (RPwD Act.) –
Section 2(m): Defines Inclusive Education as a system in which normal and disabled students’ study together and a teaching system/method is adopted which suits each student.
Section 2(r): Person with benchmark disability is someone who has at least 40% of a disability that has not been measurable, and includes someone who has a disability that has been measurable, as certified by the authority.
Section 2(y): Reasonable accommodations are necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments that ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to their rights with others without imposing disproportionate or undue burdens in a particular case.
Section 3: Equality and non-discrimination – The appropriate government shall ensure that people with disabilities have right to equality, live with dignity, and be respected for their integrity, just like everyone else. Discrimination based on disabilities is prohibited unless it is demonstrated that the act or omission is proportionate to achieving a legitimate aim.
Section 32: The Government higher education institutions and other higher education institutions that receive government aid must reserve a minimum of 5% of seats for individuals with benchmark disabilities.
Article 14: Equality before Law, Article 14 of the Indian constitution provides for equality before law and equal protection of law to all.
Article 41: Article 41 in the DPSP reads as – Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases –
The state shall make effective provisions to ensure the right to work, education, and public assistance within its economic capacity and development in cases of old age, unemployment, sickness and disablement.
ISSUES RAISED
- That whether the Medical Council of India/NMC was empowered to lay down eligibility criteria in such a manner as to altogether take away the benefits under the RPwD Act.
- Whether the certificate issued by the disability certification center rendering the appellant ineligible for pursuing the MBBS course only on the ground of disability exceeding 40% without anything more was justified.
- That whether 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.
DECISION
The Supreme court granted admission to the appellant for the MBBS course after evaluating the medical board’s report. The court also held that the purpose of disability assessment boards is not solely to quantify a candidate’s disability but also to determine their ability to attend the course in question and the disability boards shall look into and mention that if the candidate can pursue the course considering the severity of his/her disability and the decisions of the Board will be subject to judicial review and the courts can refer particular cases to any other medical institute for an independent opinion until a separate appellate body for the purpose is created.
RATIONALE
The Supreme court stated that Article 41 of the constitution imposes a duty on the state to guarantee the rights to education for all individuals, including those with disabilities.
The court also observed that there are certain sections of the rights of persons with disability Act, 2016, which were enacted to give effect to the right of persons with disability, imposes several obligations upon the state to empower such persons by ensuring equality, accessibility, and protecting them from discrimination.
The court also determined that treating all candidates having benchmark disability above 40% as ineligible without considering the Medical Board’s opinion of whether they can or cannot take the course would treat unequals equally and this would be a violation of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
PRECEDENT REFERENCES
The Supreme Court referred to the following important cases while hearing this appeal –
State of Gujrat v. Ambica Mills Ltd. 1974
The court referred this case and drew attention to the imposition of 40% disability threshold in the case, which could unfairly exclude people capable of pursuing a medical education.
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal and Anr. V. UOI and Anr.
Referring this case, the SC urged disability assessment boards to assess whether a candidate’s disability would genuinely impair their academic endeavors, instead of solely relying on numerical disability percentages.
Anvi Prakash v. NTA
The court underlined the importance of inclusive education systems that adapt to different learning needs, which promote universal access to education.
DEFECTS OF LAW
The Court Stated that construing the Appendix H-1 of the Graduate Medical Regulations, 1997 amendment 2019, (which mentioned that the candidates with less than 40% of benchmark disability could pursue MBBS courses but were ineligible for the 5% PwD Reservation which was provided under section 32 of the RPwD Act, 2016. While candidates with more than 40% were not eligible for the course at all), in a literal way would mean that everyone will not be eligible for the 5% PwD reservation, and such an interpretation is not acceptable.
CONCLUSION
This case plays an important role in determining the rights of the PwD category applicants seeking admission to medical courses and has a significant impact on inclusive education. The Supreme court passed some guidelines to protect the persons with disability from any unjustified rejection of their applications for admission. The guidelines are as under –
- That the disability boards shall look into and mention that if the candidate can pursue the course considering the severity of his/her disability.
- That the decisions of the Board will be subject to judicial review and the courts can refer particular cases to any other medical institute for an independent opinion until a separate appellate body for the purpose is created.
REFERENCES
- Manupatra | MANU/SC/1110/2024 | Omkar Ramchandra Gond vs. The Union of India and Ors. (15.10.2024 – SC)
- https://www.sci.gov.in/landmark-judgment-summaries/
PRESENTED BY –
NAME- Avinash Srivastava
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY NAME – New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed to be University, Pune, Maharashtra.