Court Cannot Assess "Functional Disability", Domain Of Experts: Delhi High Court Denies Relief To MBBS Aspirant With Missing Fingers

The Delhi High Court has declined the plea of a medical aspirant with "missing multiple fingers", seeking admission into MBBS course.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made it clear that it cannot delve into expert domains like assessing the "functional disability" of a medical aspirant and "the evaluation of the petitioner‟s ability to pursue the course, and later practice as a doctor, had to be entrusted to the experts in the medical field."

Though Petitioner's counsel insisted that the Court could intervene and itself decide as to whether the functional disability of the petitioner would actually be a hindrance in pursuing the medical profession, the High Court disagreed and held,

"While Article 226 of the Constitution grants this Court wide discretionary powers, this Court is conscious of the fact that such powers are not so expansive as to allow the Court to create or modify eligibility criteria for pursuing medical education. These standards, including those related to physical and mental fitness, are determined by experts and institutions with specialized knowledge in the field of medical education. As much as this Court may wish to intervene on behalf of a deserving candidate like Kabir, it cannot overstep its jurisdiction by altering the established norms and benchmarks."

The petitioner, Kabir, who has a locomotor disability, secured PwD Category Rank 176 in NEET UG-2024. His Disability Certificate recorded his disability at 42%, as per Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), making him eligible to seek admission.

However, during the next stage of the admission process, which required a Certificate of Disability for NEET Admissions from a recognized Disability Certification Centre, Kabir approached Vardhman Mahavir Medical College - Safdarjung Hospital (VMMC-SJ Hospital) in New Delhi which determined his disability at 68%, which was within the permissible range of 40-80%, but declared him ineligible to pursue medical studies.

In his plea, Kabir argued that the Medical Board at VMMC-SJ Hospital had disqualified him without a thorough in-person examination or a detailed assessment of his functional capabilities.

He contended that this decision violated his rights under Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise a profession of choice) of the Constitution of India. He further argued that the disqualification breached several provisions of the RPwD Act, particularly Section 3, which mandates reasonable accommodation and non-discrimination.

On an earlier hearing, the Delhi High Court had taken Kabir's prayers into consideration and directed the formation of a new Medical Board at AIIMS to independently assess his functional disability. Following a detailed examination, the Medical Board at AIIMS also concluded that Kabir's disability rendered him ineligible for the course.

Nonetheless, Kabir's counsel continued to insist that the Court could itself determine whether his functional disability would hinder his pursuit of a medical profession. However, the Court opined, "The functional assessment of the disability which was essential to decide the present case has been categorically assessed by the Medical Board, and a detailed report has been prepared by the Board which consists of the experts of the medical field. The Court has to rely on their finding, since their findings are categorical…”

Court added that though it was "disheartened", it cannot substitute its own opinion or assessment, being not an expert in the medical field.

Sounding a note of encouragement for the aspirant, Court remarked,

“His determination to succeed despite physical limitations speaks volumes about the human spirit and resilience. For a young boy to have never allowed his disability to stop him from scoring high in a competitive exam like NEET is a remarkable achievement. However, as commendable as Kabir‟s journey is, this Court is bound to respect the medical assessments made by experts and the existing statutory framework and guidelines. The Courts have to apply the law as it is and adjudicate the cases accordingly.”

As a result, the Court concluded that it could not grant relief to Kabir at this stage and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Kabir Paharia Vs National Medical Commission And Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1005

Click Here To Read Judgement