'Both Hands Intact' Condition For MBBS Admission Of Persons With Disabilities Arbitrary : Supreme Court

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court today (February 21) held that the eligibility condition prescribed by the National Medical Commission's guidelines that candidates with disabilities must have "both hands intact, with intact sensation and sufficient strength" for admission to MBBS course was arbitrary and antithetical to the Constitution.The Guidelines regarding admission of students with “Specified Disabilities”, which constitute Appendix H-1 to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations (Amendment), 2019, stated one of the conditions to be as : "Both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion are essential to be considered eligible for medical course." Finding this condition to be against the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and also the Constitution, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed the petitioner, a candidate with disability, to secure admission to MBBS course in the Government Medical College, Sirohi, RajasthanThe decision authored by Justice Viswanathan, took a stern view on the said condition when assessing the disabilities of candidates covered under the RPwD Act. The Court noted that "flexibility in answering individual needs and requirements is an essential component of reasonable accommodation. There cannot be a “one size fits all” approach." Condition Is Antithetical To RPwD, Article 41 of the Constitution The Court held "In our view, this prescription of “both hands intact…” is completely antithetical to Article 41 of the Constitution; the principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the salutary provisions of the RPwD Act. It also indicates a classification which is overbroad and glorifies 'ableism'. It propagates that persons with typical abilities and with faculties similar to what the majority may have or somehow superior. This is precisely what the Directive Principles of State Policy, the United Nations Convention and the RPwD Act abhor." Notably, Article 41 provides the Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases. It reads: The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.'Both Hands Intact' Condition Reeks Of Ableism; Cannot Be A Factor Under 'Functional Assessment' : Court Opines The Court added that such a condition was contrary to the equality principle and the percept of 'reasonable accommodation' of the PwDs and reinstated the social stigma of 'ableism'- discrimination in favour of able-bodied people. "A prescription such as “both hands intact…” reeks of ableism and has no place in a statutory regulation. In fact, it has the effect of denuding the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the RPwD Act and makes a mockery of the principle of reasonable accommodation." The bench held that such a condition cannot be part of the 'functional assessment' of a PwD candidate - which was of intrinsic importance under the RPwD Act. "The “both hands intact…” prescription has no sanctity in law as it does not admit of a functional assessment of the individual candidate, a matter which is so fundamental in protecting the rights of persons with disabilities." Disability Assessment Of Appellant Contrary To Set Precedents Of Apex CourtIn the present case, the bench was hearing a challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court which rejected the claim of the appellant suffering from disability to be admitted into MBBS Course. The Assessment Board by its Certificate of 02.09.2024, rendered him ineligible to pursue medical course.The Appellant suffered from Locomotor disability 50% with Club foot right lower limb with Phocomalia, Left middle ring finger through middle phalanx with right middle index finger through middle phalanx. Further, he has speech and language disability of 20%. The final disability computed was 58%. The Top Court then directed a functional assessment by the AIIMs Doctors Committee of 5 members along with Professor Dr. Satendra Singh as a member of the Committee. The Court perused the report of AIIMS Doctors and observed : "We have no hesitation in concluding that the report of the five members of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences cannot be the basis to deny the appellant's admission to the MBBS Course." It reasoned that :(1) The report does not satisfy the test laid down in the decisions in Omkar Ramchandra Gond and Om Rathod. The functional assessment as contemplated in the said two judgments is not borne out by the report of five members.In Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, the Court held that mere quantification of the disability will not disbar a candidate and the capacity to pursue the course has to be examined by the disability assessment board. In Om...

'Both Hands Intact' Condition For MBBS Admission Of Persons With Disabilities Arbitrary : Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

A prescription such as “both hands intact…” reeks of ableism and has no place in a statutory regulation, the Court said.

Tags