Today, On 21st February, The Supreme Court criticized the requirement that MBBS candidates must have “both hands intact,” calling it discriminatory. While acknowledging that it cannot override expert opinions, the Court emphasized the need for flexibility. It stressed the importance of reasonable accommodation to ensure inclusivity in medical education. This ruling highlights the need for a more equitable approach in eligibility criteria.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled that the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines concerning eligibility for the MBBS course, particularly the requirement for candidates to have “both hands intact,” need to be revised.
A bench consisting of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan stated that this guideline contradicts the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and Article 41 of the Constitution, which obligates the State to ensure the right to work and education for individuals with disabilities.
The bench remarked,
“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.”
The case arose from a student who qualified for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2024 but was denied admission due to not meeting the NMC’s eligibility criteria.
The appellant has a locomotor disability of 50% and a speech and language disability of 20%, leading to a final disability assessment of 58%. He sought an assessment at the Government Medical College, Chandigarh, but the Disability Assessment Board deemed him ineligible without providing any justification or evaluating his functional disability.
This decision was challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which stated it could not override expert opinions, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court had previously ordered the establishment of a five-member board to reassess the appellant’s disability.
Although the board concluded that it was bound by the 2019 Graduate Medical Education Regulations requiring candidates to have “both hands intact,” one member, Dr. Satendra Singh, expressed a separate opinion that the appellant should not be barred from admission.
The Court noted,
“In our considered view, the correct approach is the one that Dr. Satendra Singh has adopted namely, to not bar a candidate at the threshold but grant the candidate the choice after completing the MBBS Course to decide whether he wishes to specialize in a nonsurgical or medical branch or continue as a General Duty Medical Officer. As rightly set out by Dr. Satendra Singh, it will be unfair to presume incompetence at the threshold without first providing an opportunity to the candidate and ensuring the availability of accommodations and assistive products.”
While acknowledging it cannot substitute expert opinions, the Court emphasized the need for “flexibility in answering individual needs and requirements,” a critical aspect of reasonable accommodation.
It referenced its 2024 judgment in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, where it called for a revision of the NMC guidelines.
The Court maintained that the “both hands intact…” requirement lacks legal validity as it disregards the functional assessment of individual candidates, which is essential for safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities.
The ruling described the existing guideline as undermining the principle of reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities. In allowing the appeal, the Court noted that the NMC had previously assured that it would establish a new committee of experts to review the eligibility guidelines, including persons with disabilities or those knowledgeable about disability rights.
The Court directed that the case be listed on March 3 to evaluate whether the NMC has formulated revised guidelines in accordance with its earlier rulings.
Case Title: Anmol v. Union of India
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
