Winners' Dashboard
Demo Classes
+91 99714 44054
info@manulawclasses.com
Facts:
The case revolves around the appellant, Omkar Ramchandra Gond, who has a speech and language disability quantified by the medical board as exceeding 40%, specifically between 44% and 45%. He sought admission to the MBBS course under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) quota; however, his disability surpasses the 40% threshold, potentially disqualifying him according to existing medical guidelines. The medical board at Maulana Azad Medical College assessed his condition and concluded that his disability would not hinder his ability to pursue the MBBS course. Relevant legislative provisions include the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which promotes inclusive education and prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Specifically, Section 32 of the Act mandates a 5% reservation in higher education for persons with benchmark disabilities, defined as those with 40% or more disability. In response to the case, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment issued a directive in 2024, instructing the National Medical Commission (NMC) to review its guidelines and adopt a more individualized approach when assessing disabilities for medical education. Judicial precedents, such as State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills Ltd. and Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India, were cited to support the argument against blanket exclusions, emphasizing that such practices violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
Issues:
- Whether the appellant, with a disability exceeding 40%, should be disqualified from the MBBS course under the PwD quota based on the National Medical Commission’s (NMC) guidelines.
- Whether excluding the appellant from pursuing medical education solely based on a percentage threshold is consistent with the RPwD Act, which aims to provide equal opportunities through reasonable accommodations.
- Whether the NMC and other authorities should focus on providing accommodations, rather than disqualifying candidates, to ensure individuals with disabilities can pursue medical education.
Decision: The court ruled in favour of the appellant, stating that his disability, quantified between 44% and 45%, should not disqualify him from pursuing medical education under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) quota. It found that the blanket exclusion of individuals with disabilities exceeding 40% violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, as it treated individuals with varying disabilities as a homogeneous group without considering their individual capabilities. The court emphasized that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act should be interpreted in a manner that promotes the rights of persons with disabilities and supports inclusive education. It criticized rigid interpretations of medical guidelines and directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to adopt a more individualized approach to disability assessments. Furthermore, the judgment underscored the importance of reasonable accommodation, asserting that educational institutions should provide support through assistive devices and tailored resources to help candidates overcome barriers, rather than excluding them based solely on disability thresholds.
