MBBS : Supreme Court Allows Disabled-OBC Student's Admission To Medical College In Rajasthan

After having summoned the Director General of Health Services's presence after the Respondents failed to appear in a case relating to the admission of an OBC student with a benchmark disability in medical college, the Supreme Court today allowed the petitioner to be admitted to Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan had recorded yesterday in its order that following the "casual approach" of the Respondents, they sought the presence of the Director General, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.

The case is related to the medical admission of a 20-year-old student from Other Backward Class with a locomotor benchmark disability coupled with speech disability since birth.

The Petitioner had cleared the qualifying examination twice – in academic sessions 2023-24 and 2024-25. In the previous academic session (2023-24), he was declared ineligible by the Disability Assessment Board (DAB), which he challenged before the Rajasthan High Court. However, the High relied on the DAB's report and dismissed the petitioner, rendering him ineligible to pursue medical education. He again qualified NEET UG in 2024, but was declared ineligible by the Disability Assessment Board in Chandigarh.

The assessment was challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which, on September 23, 2024, dismissed his petition in limine, again upholding the Board's assessment.

The petitioner, represented by iProbono India's panel lawyers Atif Inam and Rishit Vimadalal, approached the Supreme Court in an SLP. As per the SLP, the petitioner took NEET-UG on May 5 as an OBC candidate, eligible for 5% horizontal reservation on account of being a person with a disability. When results were declared on August 26, the petitioner secured 205 marks out of 720 maximum marks, which was above the cut-off marks of 143-127 for the OBC-PwD category.

When the petitioner sought his disability certificate, his locomotor disability was quantified at 50%, which is within the prescribed range of 40-80% making him eligible for reservation under 'physical disability quota' for medical education. The petitioner's plea is that in his disability certificate, he however declared ineligible to pursue medical education on account of his quantified disability and without offering any reasons.

The Court issued notice on November 25 and directed AIIMS Delhi to constitute an expert committee to assess whether the petitioner's disability would come in the way of his pursuing medical studies.

The Order stated: "In the meantime, we direct Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi to constitute a Committee to examine as to whether the disability suffered by the petitioner would come in the way of his pursuing medical studies. We request the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi to co-opt Professor Dr. Satendra Singh as a member of the Committee."

As per iprobono, while the AIIMS committee's report found the petitioner ineligible under the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines—which mandate intact and functional hands for medical studies—they also stated that the current guidelines need revision. Dr. Singh, a part of the expert committee, issued a dissenting report establishing that the petitioner could successfully navigate the MBBS course and practice as a doctor. His report emphasised on clinical accommodations and assistive technologies as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and international best practices.

Relying on Dr. Singh's report, the Supreme Court directed the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to consider the petitioner's admission under the OBC/PWD category based on merit.

By an order dated December 2, the Court had passed an interim order directing admission of the petitioner against the OBC-PwD category in accordance with his own merits. However, considering its non-compliance it was compelled to summon the government officer.

Today, when the Additional Solicitor General Vikram Banerjee appeared for the Union, the Court expressed its displeasure at the lack of appearance yesterday. It noted that often in many cases, the Counsels for the Union does not appear. The Court was then requested to peruse the list of colleges suggested by Banerjee where the petitioner could be reasonably accommodated. Based on the ranking, it would be found suitable that the petitioner could be admitted to Medical College in Sirohi.

Case Details: Case Details: ANMOL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 27632/2024

Appearances: Atif Inam, AOR, Advocates Rishit Vimadalal, Shrutika Pandey, and Karuvaki Mohanty (for Petitioners), ASG Vikram Banerjee for Union