MBBS Admission For Student With Speech Disability : Supreme Court Asks NMC To Form Expert Committee To Relook Regulations

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the National Medical Council to broaden its framework to be more inclusive towards persons with disabilities and form a committee for the have a relook at the provisions barring persons having more than 40% disability from MBBS admissions. The remark was made by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha in a petition challenging the 2019 Amendment to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 to the extent that it precludes candidates with speech and language benchmark disability (quantified at 40% or above) from availing reservation and taking admission in MBBS courses. As per the regulations, the petitioner, who had 55% speech disability had been denied admission in medical colleges.

At the outset, the National Medical Council (NMC) stated that two parameters had to be considered before allowing a disabled students to be admitted in the course– first, whether the student will be able to do the course properly and; second, whether after doing the course the student will be able to treat patients properly. The counsel for NMC stated that an elaborate AIIMS doctors' committee was formed to determine whether a student with speech disabilities exceeding 40% could finish the course.

Per contra, the petitioner submitted that all doctors could not be put in the same category. The counsel for petitioner stated–

"I can do research if my speech disability affects practice."

The respondent retorted stating that in order to get into research too, a student had to first become a doctor and treat patients. 

CJI DY Chandrachud interjected and stated–

"This is not a disability which would affect...I mean to say that the child would be shut out from becoming a doctor...there is only a speech defect. This has to be looked at in a broader perspective of inclusion. We want to have a broader perspective in general, not just for this student. We can have some holistic perspective, not just doctors on the panel, have a broader framework, have the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, let's have someone from the disability area...Constitute a committee and that committee can decide whether this needs to be varied."

The NMC submitted that they will submit a reply regarding the same. CJI DY Chandrachud also asked ASG Aishwarya Bhati to assist in the matter and see if the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment could do something. Bhati responded–

"Maybe we can find a way out of Section 33 which mandates that every three-year review has to be done. The whole scheme of the Act is that scientific improvement and technological improvement must come in aid. These Regulations are also of 2019. So maybe it is time to have a fresh look. We will assist you."

The matter has now been listed for 6th Jan 2023. 

Petitioner's Arguments

As per the impugned regulation, disability quantified at 39% or below makes one eligible for reservation, but for 40% or beyond there is neither provision for reservation nor for taking admission. The blanket ban is assailed for being disproportionate. The petition argues that the notification stands in clear derogation of the rights of persons with disability contemplated in Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as well as mandates under the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2007. The petition also claims that the determination of disability set out as cut-off is also without any scientific basis and is thus arbitrary, and discriminatory. It contends that the petitioner has been excluded from pursuing her medical education only because her speech defect is in excess of 40%, and she does not suffer from intellectual or physical disability. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC to argue on 'reasonable accommodation' to persons with disability. The petition also relies on doctrines of Progressive Realisation of Rights and Non-retrogression as elucidated in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.

The petition beseeches the Bench to invoke jurisdiction under Article 142 and allow her to pursue MBBS course in the allocated seat under reserved seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.

On 19.04.2017, the Right of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016 came into force. A report was submitted by experts to the Medical Council of India (now NMC) with respect to formulation of guidelines for admission of persons with specified disabilities. The report suggested that the persons with 40% or above speech and language disability should not be eligible to be admitted to a medical course. Thereafter, the 2019 Amendment was made to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 in tune with the suggestions of the experts. On 26.10.2021, the petitioner was issued her disability certificate and he appeared for NEET UG 2021. Subsequently, after assessment of disability and eligibility for admission to the MBBS course, the petitioner was allocated a seat at Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College, Karnal, Haryana. She made the requisite deposits. On 14.03.2022, a disability certificate was issued declaring her a person with benchmark disability. She was declared ineligible for admission as per the 2019 amendment. Re-verification exercise was also taken up, but there was no change in her disability status. A petition was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court praying for granting her admission to the allocated seat; representations were also made to the concerned authorities. The High Court directed the said authority to consider her representation. It yielded no results, as the authority merely re-affirmed her ineligibility. Another writ was filed before the High Court which was eventually withdrawn without the consent of the petitioner.

Case Title: Vibhushita Sharma v UOI & Ors W.P.(C) No. 793/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order