Government And Private Sector Should Focus On How To Accommodate, Not Disqualify, Candidates With Disabilities: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 15) stressed that the focus of the government, regulatory bodies, and the private sector should be on how to accommodate and provide opportunities for candidates with disabilities, rather than seeking ways to disqualify them or hinder their educational goals.
“The approach of the Government, instrumentalities of States, regulatory bodies and for that matter even private sector should be, as to how best can one accommodate and grant the opportunity to the candidates with disability. The approach should not be as to how best to disqualify the candidates and make it difficult for them to pursue and realize their educational goals.”
A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that the Disability Assessment Boards are not to function as "monotonous automations" that merely check the percentage of disability. The Court emphasized that the role of the Disability Assessment Boards is to determine whether a candidate's disability will impede their ability to pursue the course in question.
“Disabilities Assessment Boards are not monotonous automations to just look at the quantified benchmark disability as set out in the certificate of disability and cast aside the candidate. Such an approach would be antithetical to Article 14 and Article 21 and all canons of justice, equity and good conscience. It will also defeat the salutary objectives of the RPwD Act. The Disabilities Assessment Boards are obliged to examine the further question as to whether the candidate in the opinion of the experts in the field is eligible to pursue the course or in other words, whether the disability will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question.”
The Court passed the following directions in this regard –
- The Court held that the Disability Assessment Boards must positively record whether the disability would impede the candidate's ability to complete the course. If the Board concludes that a candidate is ineligible, it must provide reasons for its decision.
- Pending the formulation of revised regulations by the National Medical Commission, the Disability Assessment Boards must consider the principles outlined in a communication from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated January 25, 2024. This communication emphasized the need for incorporating advancements in assistive technology and ensuring that regulations comply with the objectives of the RPwD Act.
- The Court held that candidates can challenge negative opinions of the Disability Assessment Boards through judicial review. The courts have to refer such cases to premier medical institutions for independent opinions.
The Court passed the aforementioned directions while ruling that the mere existence of a benchmark disability cannot disqualify a candidate from pursuing educational courses, including the MBBS program.
The Court allowed an appeal filed by a candidate with a speech and language disability quantified at 44-45%. The candidate sought admission to the MBBS program under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category, but was denied admission on the ground of having a benchmark disability. This decision was based on the Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 1997 as amended in 2019. This regulation barred candidates with 40% or more disability from pursuing an MBBS course.
The question before the Court was whether a candidate with a benchmark disability exceeding 40%, such as the appellant's speech and language disability, should be automatically disqualified from admission under the PwD category for the MBBS course.
The Supreme Court stressed that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 was framed to give effect to the principles set forth in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which emphasize respect for individual autonomy, non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, and full participation in society.
The Court referred to Article 41 of the Constitution, which mandates the State to make effective provisions for securing the right to education for persons with disabilities. It also focused on Sections 2(m), 2(r), 2(y), 3, and 32 of the RPwD Act, 2016, which provide for inclusive education, reasonable accommodation, and reservation of seats in higher educational institutions for persons with benchmark disabilities.
The Court criticized appendix H-1 inserted by the 2019 amendment to the Regulations for creating an absurd situation wherein candidates with less than 40% disability could pursue the MBBS course without PwD reservation, and those with 40% or more disability were not eligible at all to pursue the course.
“The column under the guidelines “Eligible for Medical Course, Eligible for PwD quota” is left blank reinforcing the absurd position that under this category no one is rendered eligible for the 5% reserved quota. Certainly that cannot be the legal position”, the Court highlighted.
The Court emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation of the RPwD Act and the NMC regulations. It held that a blanket exclusion of candidates with 40% or more disability, without considering their ability to pursue the course, was unconstitutional. This interpretation, the Court said, was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the mere quantification of a speech and language disability at 40% or above does not disqualify a candidate from claiming admission to a course. The Court emphasized that such an interpretation would result in overbroad application of the Regulations, treating unequal cases equally.
"Lumping together persons with benchmark disabilities who can pursue the educational course with those with the same disabilities who, in the opinion of the Medical Board, cannot pursue the course would tantamount to over-inclusion. This is precisely what Article 14 frowns upon", the Court held.
The Court stressed the importance of inclusive education, noting that reasonable accommodation, as defined in Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act, includes making necessary adjustments to ensure equal participation for persons with disabilities.
The Court confirmed the appellant's admission to the MBBS program, which had been granted earlier through an interim order dated September 18, 2024, based on a favorable report by the Maulana Azad Medical College.
The Supreme Court also referenced individuals who have overcome disabilities and achieved great success. The Court mentioned individuals such as Bharatanatyam dancer Sudha Chandran, Mount Everest climber Arunima Sinha, and sports personality H. Boniface Prabhu, along with historical figures like Homer, Milton, Mozart, and Beethoven.
Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39448/2024
Case Title – Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 770