Facts

Omkar, a meritorious student with 97.02% in Class 10 and a first-division in Class 12, was diagnosed with a 45% permanent speech and language disability. He applied for NEET (UG) 2024 under the PwD and OBC categories and qualified the exam. As per NEET rules, PwD candidates had to undergo fresh assessment, and Omkar was again certified with 45% disability. However, based on National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines, he was declared ineligible for MBBS admission, as candidates with 40% or more of certain disabilities are barred from the course.

Omkar challenged this in the Bombay High Court, arguing that the NMC’s criteria unlawfully negated the rights granted under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. He also contested the disability certificate that disqualified him based solely on a percentage threshold. The High Court denied him interim relief.

He then approached the Supreme Court, which ordered that a seat be kept vacant and directed Maulana Azad Medical College to assess whether his disability truly hindered his ability to pursue medicine. The board concluded it did not. The Supreme Court, considering the RPwD Act’s intent and constitutional values, gave weight to this expert opinion in its final determination.

Issues

i. Whether a benchmark disability of 40% or more can automatically disqualify a PwD candidate from pursuing an MBBS course without assessing their actual functional ability?

ii. Whether the National Medical Commission’s regulations, by excluding such candidates based solely on disability percentage, conflict with the objectives and protections guaranteed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?

iii. Whether the Disability Assessment Board and the NMC are justified in denying admission based solely on a quantified disability without individualized evaluation of the candidate’s competence to undertake medical education?

Analysis

• Constitutional and Statutory Foundations- The Supreme Court’s reasoning was deeply grounded in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Article 14 prohibits arbitrary classification, requiring a rational nexus between the classification and its objective. Article 21, guaranteeing the right to life with dignity, encompasses the right to education, especially for vulnerable groups such as persons with disabilities. The Court held that treating all candidates with a disability above 40% as uniformly ineligible—without evaluating their actual capacity—amounted to treating unequals equally, a clear violation of Article 14. The Court also invoked Article 41, which imposes a duty on the State to secure the right to education and assist individuals with disabilities in achieving educational inclusion.

• Interpretation of the RPwD Act, 2016- Key sections of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016—notably Sections 2(m), 2(r), 2(y), 3, 15, and 32—were central to the analysis. The Court emphasized that the Act mandates Non-discrimination in education (Section 3), reasonable accommodation for equal participation (Section 3 & 15) and inclusive education systems that adapt to varied needs (Section 3, 32). The Court interpreted these provisions as requiring flexibility and case-specific evaluation rather than blanket exclusion based on percentage thresholds.

• Judicial Precedents and Reasonable Accommodation- The Court relied on several landmark rulings to support its reasoning:

• a) In Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, the concept of reasonable accommodation was defined as necessary adjustments enabling PwDs to participate equally in public life.
• b) Avni Prakash v. NTA emphasized the development of inclusive education as a means to fulfill the RPwD Act’s goals.
• c) Drawing from State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills Ltd., the Court critiqued the over-inclusive classification created by a rigid 40% benchmark, which failed to account for individual potential and actual limitations.
• d) In Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, the Court stressed that Disability Assessment Boards must assess the practical impact of a disability on the pursuit of specific academic courses.

• Role of the Medical Board and Final Determination- Responding to Omkar’s appeal, the Supreme Court ordered an independent evaluation by a board at Maulana Azad Medical College. This board concluded that Omkar’s disability did not hinder his ability to study medicine. The Court gave weight to this finding and held that exclusion based solely on disability percentage, without functional assessment, was arbitrary and unjust.

Judgement

The Supreme Court allowed the appellant, Omkar, admission to the MBBS course after considering the independent evaluation by the medical board at Maulana Azad Medical College, which found that his speech and language disability would not hinder his ability to pursue the medical program.

The Court emphasized that the purpose of Disability Assessment Boards is not merely to quantify the extent of disability, but to determine whether the disability functionally impairs the candidate’s ability to complete the course. It clarified that decisions made by such boards are not final and are subject to judicial review. Courts may refer cases to other medical institutions for independent evaluation, especially in the absence of a dedicated appellate body.

This judgment reinforces the rights of PwD candidates seeking admission to professional courses and significantly contributes to the development of inclusive education jurisprudence. Some key guidelines issued by the Court are as follows:

• • Disability Assessment Boards must explicitly state whether a candidate can pursue the course based on the severity of their disability.
• • The quantified percentage of disability alone cannot disqualify a candidate under the PwD quota.
• • All negative recommendations must include reasons and remain open to judicial review.
• • Until an appellate mechanism is created, courts may refer cases to other medical institutions for a second opinion.
• • The principle of reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act must be upheld.
• • The NMC must revise its regulations to ensure inclusivity by 2025.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Omkar’s case marks a pivotal step toward strengthening the rights of persons with disabilities in accessing professional education. By setting aside the rigid application of a 40% disability threshold, the Court reinforced that eligibility must be determined through individual functional assessment, not mere numerical quantification. The ruling recognized the importance of reasonable accommodation, inclusive education, and the right to equality under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court not only granted admission to the appellant but also issued forward-looking guidelines to prevent arbitrary exclusion of PwD candidates in the future. It emphasized that Disability Assessment Boards must evaluate a candidate’s actual ability to pursue a course, and that their decisions are subject to judicial scrutiny.

This judgment affirms that regulatory bodies like the NMC must align their policies with the objectives of the RPwD Act, 2016, and the constitutional mandate of inclusion and non-discrimination. It sets a clear precedent for a more empathetic, rights-based approach to disability and education, promoting systemic reform and ensuring that merit is not denied due to a misunderstood or misapplied disability standard.