Supreme Court of India
KABIR PAHARIAversusNATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 623
- Decided
- 2 May 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The Supreme Court held that denying admission to the appellant, a SC‑PwBD candidate, was grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16, and ordered his allocation of a seat and revision of NMC guidelines.
Summary
The appellant, a Scheduled Caste candidate with benchmark disabilities, secured a high rank in the NEET‑UG 2024 examination and applied for admission to the MBBS UG course at AIIMS, New Delhi under the SC‑PwBD quota. The Vardhman Mahavir Medical College’s disability certification board deemed him ineligible under NMC norms, a decision upheld by the Delhi High Court despite a fresh medical board assessment. The appellant challenged the denial, arguing that it violated Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which require reasonable accommodation. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier judgments in Om Rathod and Anmol, held that the denial was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principle of substantive equality. It directed the National Medical Commission to revise its guidelines and ordered that the appellant be allocated a seat in the 2025‑2026 MBBS session under the SC‑PwBD quota. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the denial of admission to a SC‑PwBD candidate in the MBBS UG course violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the medical board’s assessment under existing NMC guidelines, without considering reasonable accommodation, is arbitrary and illegal.
- Whether the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates the provision of reasonable accommodation in professional education for PwBD candidates.
- Whether the Delhi High Court’s order upholding the denial should be set aside.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the denial of admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG course under Scheduled Castes PwBD quota was grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed u/Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† course – Person with benchmark disabilities – The appellant being a person with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste was denied admission to the MBBS UG course despite standing high in merit in his category owing to his disability –
Subjects
EducationAdmissionMBBS UG coursePerson with benchmark disabilitiesFundamental RightsArticle 14 of ConstitutionArticle 16 of ConstitutionArticle 21 of ConstitutionEqualityReasonable accommodationExclusionary practicesStereotypical assumptions
Judgment
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 653 : 2025 INSC 623
Kabir Paharia
v.
National Medical Commission and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 5836 of 2025)
02 May 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the denial of admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG
course under Scheduled Castes PwBD quota was grossly illegal,
arbitrary and violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights as
guaranteed u/Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Headnotes†
Education – Admission – MBBS UG course – Person with
benchmark disabilities – The appellant being a person with
benchmark disabilities (PwBD) belongs to the reserved
category of Scheduled Caste was denied admission to the
MBBS UG course despite standing high in merit in his category
owing to his disability – Writ Petition – The High Court relying
on the report submitted by the Medical Board concluded that
the appellant was ineligible to pursue the medical courses –
Correctness:
Held: This Court directed to constitute a fresh Medical Board –
Appellant was subjected to extensive review assessment by the
Medical Board – The report of the Board makes it amply clear that
the appellant successfully demonstrated skilled techniques in the
simulation laboratory including chest compressions, intravenous
cannulation, assembly of a laryngoscope, intubation and suturing –
The Medical Board, in its report, observed that the appellant
demonstrated the functional adaptation using his existing digits
during these tasks – The only minor challenge, which the appellant
faced during the entire procedure, was putting on the sterilized
standard gloves – This trivial aberration cannot be a ground to
deny admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG course – The
denial of admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG course was
* Author
654 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the appellant’s fundamental
rights as guaranteed u/Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India –
The constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that
person with disabilities (PwD) and PwBD be afforded reasonable
accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices
based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities – Thus,
the appellant to be allocated a seat in the MBBS UG course 2025
against the Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the AIIMS, New
Delhi – The impugned order of the High Court is set aside – Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Constitution of India –
Arts.14 and 16. [Paras 6, 7, 9, 12, 17]
Education – Admission – MBBS UG course – Person with
benchmark disabilities – Process of revising guidelines –
Directions issued:
Held: National Medical Commission directed to forthwith and not
later than within a period of two months and at any cost before
the counselling for the 2025-2026 session commence, complete
the process of revising the guidelines in light of judgments of this
Court in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Sciences and
Anmol v. Union of India & Ors. [Para 14]
Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 16 – Person with disabilities
and Person with benchmark disabilities – Meaningful
participation – Reasonable accommodation is not a matter
of charity but a fundamental right:
Held: The constitutional promise of equality is not merely formal
but substantive, requiring the State to take affirmative measures
to ensure that PwD and PwBD can meaningfully participate in
all spheres of life, including professional education – This Court
emphasizes that reasonable accommodation is not a matter of
charity but a fundamental right flowing from Arts.14, 16, and 21
of Constitution – When administrative authorities create arbitrary
barriers that exclude qualified PwBD candidates, they not only
violate statutory provisions but also perpetuate the historical
injustice and stigmatisation – The fundamental rights and the dignity
of PwD and PwBD candidates must be protected by ensuring that
assessment of their capabilities is individualised, evidence-based,
and free from stereotypical assumptions that have no scientific
foundation. [Para 15]
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 655
Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission and Others
Case Law Cited
Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Sciences [2024] 10 SCR
2187 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4283; Anmol v. Union of India &
Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387 – referred to.
List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Education; Admission; MBBS UG course; Person with benchmark
disabilities; Fundamental Rights; Article 14 of Constitution; Article
16 of Constitution; Article 21 of Constitution; Equality; Reasonable
accommodation; Exclusionary practices; Stereotypical assumptions.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5836 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2024 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 967 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Talha Abdul Rahman, Rahul Bajaj, Taha
Bin Tasneem, Amar Jain, M Shaz Khan.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Piyush Beriwal, Sudarshan
Lamba, Praneet Pranav, Aaditya Dixit, Aditya Manubarwala, Prateek
Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Paranjay Tripathi, Rajesh Raj.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant being a person with benchmark disabilities (for short
‘PwBD’) belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste and
656 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
aspires for admission to the MBBS UG (Bachelor of Medicine and
Bachelor of Surgery) course. Having been denied admission to the
MBBS course, despite standing high in merit in his category i.e.,
Scheduled Castes-PwBD quota, the appellant approached the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi1 by filing a Writ Petition (C) No. 12165
of 2024, which came to be rejected vide order dated 10th September,
2024. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 967 of 2024, preferred by the
appellant, also stands rejected by the Division Bench of the High
Court vide order dated 12th November, 2024, which is assailed in
this appeal by special leave.
4. The facts in brief, essential for disposal of the present matter, can
be gathered from the detailed order dated 2nd April, 2025 passed by
this Court, which is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“2. The petitioner passed Secondary School Examination/
Class X th in 2022 with 91.5% marks and class XII th
exams with 90% marks. He appeared for the National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (for short “NEET”) UG 2024
Examinations in the category of SC/PwBD candidate.
The deformities suffered by the petitioner in his body are
as below:-
“congenital absence of multiple fingers in both hands
as well as involvement of left foot (2nd and 3rd toe),
the extent whereof has been assessed at 42%.”
3. Despite the structural disadvantages referred to
above, the petitioner performed exceedingly well in the
examination scoring 542 marks and secured a category
rank of 176. It may be stated that the cut-off marks for
these subcategories were 143-127. Having made the
cut-off for the SC/PwBD category with flying colours,
the petitioner staked his rightful claim for the next stage
which requires the issuance of a Certificate of Disability
for NEET Admissions (“NEET Disability Certificate”) by a
designated ‘Disability Certification Centre’. Accordingly,
the petitioner approached the Vardhman Mahavir Medical
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court.’
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 657
Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission and Others
College-Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi (for short “VMMC-
SJ Hospital”) for medical assessment. Even though, the
VMMC-SJ Hospital assessed the petitioner’s disability at
68%, it concluded that under the NMC/MCI guidelines,
the petitioner was not entitled to pursue the medical
courses. The conclusions drawn by the certifying body
in the certificate dated 19th August, 2024, are reproduced
below for ready reference:-
“Conclusion: Based on quantification of disability
The candidate is not eligible to pursue medical
courses (as per NMC norms).
Remark: BILATERAL UPEER (sic) LIMB
INVOLVEMENT
The Disability Certification Board certifies that
the candidate is not eligible for admission in
Medical/Dental courses and to avail 5% PwD
reservation as per the NMC/MCI Gazette
Notification.”
4. Aggrieved by his disqualification from admission in the
MBBS course on the ground of benchmark disabilities,
despite standing high in merit, the petitioner approached
the High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No.
12165 of 2024.
5. The learned Single Bench of the High Court directed
the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
to constitute a Board of three experts to reassess the
petitioner’s disabilities and to give an opinion as to whether
the petitioner would be able to pursue medical courses
and perform as a Doctor. In compliance, the petitioner
was subjected to reassessment by the Medical Board
constituted at AIIMS, New Delhi and the report was
submitted to the learned Single Judge, who upon perusal
thereof, concluded that the petitioner was ineligible to
pursue medical courses. Accordingly, the writ petition was
dismissed vide order dated 10th September, 2024.
6. The petitioner assailed the decision of the learned Single
Judge by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 967 of 2024.
658 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi passed
an order dated 27th September, 2024, and directed a
fresh evaluation of the petitioner’s disabilities by a newly
constituted medical Board. The three-member medical
Board constituted at the AIIMS reiterated the conclusions
of the earlier Medical Board and again declared the
petitioner ineligible to pursue the medical courses as per
the prevailing NMC norms. Upon receiving the report,
the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide
impugned judgment dated 12th November, 2024, endorsed
the view of the board and dismissed the Letters Patent
Appeal preferred by the petitioner. The said judgment is
subject matter of challenge in this petition.
7. Mr. Rahul Bajaj, learned counsel representing the
petitioner, contended that the impugned judgment and
the decisions of both the medical Boards are inherently
flawed inasmuch as neither the medical authorities nor
the High Court duly adverted to the crucial concepts of
assistive devices and reasonable accommodation to which
the petitioner is entitled, under the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short ‘Act of 2016’). The vital
factors, i.e., the academic excellence of the petitioner, his
performance in the NEET examination, the high placement
in merit, were totally glossed over while denying relief to
the petitioner. Shri Bajaj relied upon the judgments of
this Court in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health
Sciences, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4283 and Anmol v.
Union of India & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387, to
urge that the salutary principles provided under Article
41 of the Constitution of India read with the Act of 2016
clearly entitle the petitioner to seek medical education as
both these judgments expressly recognize the concepts
of assistive devices and reasonable accommodation. By
availing these moderations as provided under the decisions
of this Court, the petitioner would be well equipped to
perform his duties as a Doctor.
8. Learned counsel submitted that in the case of
Om Rathod (supra), despite the fact that the candidate
was not having both hands, he was held entitled to undergo
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 659
Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission and Others
the MBBS course pursuant to an assessment made by
Dr. Satendra Singh, a specialist in the field.
9. Learned counsel submitted that Dr. Satendra Singh, while
undertaking the functional assessment of the candidate
Shri Om Rathod posed four questions for assessing his
ability to undergo MBBS course and concluded that all the
questions had to be answered in negative. The relevant
excerpt from Om Rathod’s judgment is quoted below: -
“11. Dr Satendra Singh submitted his report
on 20 October 2024. This Court duly furnished
the report to the second respondent, National
Medical Council, on 21 October 2024 to enable
them to formulate their response. The report
by Dr Satendra Singh outlined the functional
disability of the appellant to be an inability to
stand independently which may prove limiting in
clinical rotations in surgical settings. The report
suggested solutions to enable the appellant in
such cases. The report further suggested clinical
accommodations for the appellant to reduce
the barriers he may encounter. The report
determined the accommodations necessary for
the appellant to be reasonable and in compliance
with existing norms. The report formulated four
questions and answered them as follows:
“a) Would the proposed accommodation result
in a failure to meet the NMC CBME’s inherent
requirements? Not in my opinion
b) Would the accommodation legitimately
jeopardize patient safety? Not in my opinion
c) Would the proposed accommodation result
in the improper waiver of a core requirement of
the CBME? Not in my opinion
d) Would the proposed accommodation pose an
undue hardship on the medical college (budgets
wise)? Not in my opinion”
660 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
10. In his report, Dr. Satendra Singh quoted that the father
of Neurosurgery Harvey Cushing emphasized way back
in 1912 that motor skills are often the least important part
of the work.
11. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner in the
case of Anmol (supra) was suffering from locomotor
disability assessed at 50% with club foot right lower limb
and Phocomelia (a congenital defect which causes severe
limb shortening or loss of long bones), in left middle ring
finger through middle phalanx with right middle index finger
through middle phalanx. The candidate also suffered from
speech and language disability assessed at 20%.
12. Mr. Bajaj contended that the petitioner herein is
having much better physical/locomotor attributes and is
well equipped as compared to the two candidates in the
cases of Anmol (supra) and Om Rathod (supra). He also
scored much higher marks than these candidates in NEET
(UG) examination 2024-2025. Anmol had obtained rank
2462 in the PwD category, whereas the petitioner herein
secured 176 rank and thus, he is much better placed than
the candidates in the above-referred cases.
13. He submitted that the assessment made by the medical
Board of the petitioner’s capability to take the medical
degree course and his disqualification on the anvil of NMC
norms is illegal and unsustainable in view of the law laid
down by this Court in the judgments referred to supra.
14. He, therefore, urged that a direction deserves to be
issued to have a reassessment done of the petitioner
through Dr. Satyendra Singh on the ratio of the above
referred judgments and to mandate the respondents to
grant admission and accommodate the petitioner in the
MBBS (UG) Course 2024-2025.
15. Relying upon the order dated 17th April, 2023, passed
in the case of Vibhushita Sharma v. Union of India, Writ
Petition (Civil) No.793 of 2022, learned counsel submitted
that in case, this Court is not inclined to grant admission
to the petitioner in the 2024-2025 MBBS Degree course, a
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 661
Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission and Others
suitable direction deserves to be issued to the respondents
to admit the petitioner in the academic session 2025-2026
treating him to be NEET (UG) qualified.
16. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Union
of India and National Medical Commission urged that the
Commission is under the process of revising its guidelines
in compliance with the judgments in the cases of Om
Rathod (supra) and Anmol (supra). Three meetings have
already taken place, and the process is expected to be
finalised before counselling for the next academic session
commences. They thus, urged that the petitioner will not
be prejudiced, if the consideration of this matter is deferred
till the new guidelines are put in place.
17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the
material placed on record.
18. Prima facie, we find substance in the submission of
the learned counsel representing the respondents that the
process for revising the guidelines in terms of this Court’s
decisions (supra) is underway and a final outcome is
expected before the counselling session for MBBS (UG)
2025-2026 commences. However, we are not inclined to
defer the proceedings at this stage.
19. Denying relief to the petitioner on this premise would
be totally unjustified in view of the ratio of this Court’s
judgments in Om Rathod (supra) and Anmol (supra).
Merely because the NMC is under the process of revising
the guidelines, the petitioner’s fate cannot be allowed to
hang in a limbo in spite of the fact that he has performed
exceedingly well in the NEET (UG) 2024 examination and
stood high in the merit in his category.
20. In view of the above, we hereby direct that a fresh
Medical Board shall be constituted at the All-India Institute
of Medical Sciences, New Delhi comprising of five Doctors/
specialists. One of the Board members shall be a specialist
in locomotor disabilities and one member shall be a Neuro-
Physician.
662 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
21. The petitioner shall be intimated a suitable date for
assessment by the Board within the next seven days.
He shall appear before the Board on the appointed date
whereupon the Board shall undertake a fresh assessment
of the petitioner’s disabilities with due deference to the
ratio of this Court’s judgments in Om Rathod (supra) and
Anmol (supra). The Board’s report shall be forwarded to
this Court in a sealed cover on or before 15th April, 2025.”
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the appellant was subjected to
extensive review assessment by a Medical Board constituted at the
All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (for short ‘AIIMS,
New Delhi’). The report dated 24th April, 2025 has been forwarded
by the Medical Board, which is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake
of convenience: -
“Subject: Report of the medical board constituted at AIIMS
for medical examination of petitioner Sh. Kabir Paharia in
compliance of order dated 02.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, New Delhi (Section-XIV)vide Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 29275 of 2024 titled Kabir Paharia
Versus National Medical Commission & Others.
*****************************
With reference to the aforementioned subject, the Medical
Superintendent, AIIMS, New Delhi constituted a Medical
Board consisting of the following members:-
1. Dr. S.L. Yadav - Chairperson
Professor, Deptt. of P.M.R
2. Dr. Suman Jain - Member
Professor, Deptt. of Physiology
3. Dr. Divya M.R. - Member
Assoc. Professor, Deptt. of Neurology
4. Dr. Arun Kumar Choudhary - Member
Asstt. Professor, Deptt. of PMR
5. Dr. Sahil Batra - Member
Asstt. Professor, Deptt. of Orthopaedics
6. Dr. Veeranna B. - Member Secy.
Department of Hospital Administration
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 663
Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission and Others
The meeting of the Medical Board was held on 16.04.2024
(Wednesday) at 11:00 A.M. in the Seminar Room, Room
No. 01, Ground floor, PMR OPD, Department of PMR,
AIIMS, New Delhi. The available reports, earlier disability
certificates and medical documents were reviewed. The
petitioner Sh. Kabir Paharia was present and was examined
by the members of the Medical Board. The second board
meeting was held on 22nd April 2025 at 11:00 AM in the
SET facility convergence block, AIIMS, New Delhi.
Mr. Kabir Paharia underwent a comprehensive neurological
examination as part of the Medical Board assessment. It
was observed that Mr. Kabir has a significant absence of
multiple digits in both hands (specifically, the index and
middle fingers on the right hand, and the index, middle,
and ring fingers on the left hand) as well as in the left foot
(notably, the second and third toes), which is attributed to a
birth complication as documented in the available medical
records. His condition is deemed non-progressive, and
the locomotor disability is classified as permanent. The
neurological examination showed normal strength in the
existing limbs and digits, with intact sensations and good
coordination of the existing limbs and digits.
He was asked to demonstrate various skilled techniques
in the simulation laboratory, including chest compressions,
intravenous cannulation, assembly of a laryngoscope,
intubation, and suturing, all of which he executed
satisfactorily. He demonstrated functional adaptation using
his existing digits during these tasks. However, the board
observed that he faced minor challenges while attempting
to put on the sterilized standard gloves. He had slight
coordination problems and delays caused by the lack of
fingers and empty finger slots in the gloves. An evaluation
by an occupational therapist validated his independence
in activities of daily living (ADLs).”
6. A careful perusal of the above report makes it amply clear that
the appellant successfully demonstrated skilled techniques in the
simulation laboratory including chest compressions, intravenous
cannulation, assembly of a laryngoscope, intubation and suturing. The
664 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Medical Board, in its report, observed that the appellant demonstrated
the functional adaptation using his existing digits during these tasks.
The only minor challenge, which the appellant faced during the entire
procedure, was putting on the sterilized standard gloves.
7. We feel that the mindset must change and this trivial aberration, by
no stretch of imagination, can be a ground to deny admission to the
appellant in the MBBS UG course, when he is otherwise qualified
and scored exceeding high rank in the NEET-UG 2024.
8. As per the result of NEET-UG 2024, the appellant secured an All-India
Rank of 147946. His Scheduled Caste category rank was 7252, and
his PwBD category rank was 176. The appellant has also submitted
details of the provisional NEET-UG 2024 counselling seat allotment
(Round 1), according to which a candidate with Roll No. 14491, who
ranked 159816, was allocated a seat at AIIMS, New Delhi under the
Scheduled Castes PwBD category. Apparently thus, a candidate who
stood much below the appellant in merit has been admitted against
the reserved seat at the AIIMS, New Delhi to which the appellant
had a valid claim.
9. Manifestly, in view of the observations made by us in the order
dated 2nd April, 2025 and the consequent successful assessment of
the appellant by the Medical Board, AIIMS, New Delhi vide report
dated 24th April, 2025, the denial of admission to the appellant in
the MBBS UG course was grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of
the appellant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such action not only reflects
institutional bias and systemic discrimination but also undermines the
principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination enshrined in our
constitutional framework. The constitutional mandate of substantive
equality demands that person with disabilities (for short ‘PwD’) and
PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected
to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about
their capabilities.
10. On the previous date of hearing, we had sought a response from
the learned counsel representing the respondents regarding the
appellant’s submission that the candidate who secured a rank lower
than the appellant had been granted admission against the Scheduled
Castes PwBD quota in the MBBS UG course at AIIMS, New Delhi,
for the academic year 2024–2025.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 665
Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission and Others
11. Today, during the course of hearing, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave,
learned ASG, on instructions, fairly affirms this assertion of the
appellant. She further states that as the appellant has been
successfully assessed by the Medical Board constituted at AIIMS,
New Delhi, he can be afforded admission in MBBS UG course against
the Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the AIIMS, New Delhi in the
forthcoming counselling session of 2025-2026.
12. Taking consideration of the fact that the 2024-2025 academic
session must have progressed significantly and thus it would not be
expedient to grant admission to the appellant in the said session.
We accordingly direct that the appellant shall be allocated a seat in
the MBBS UG course 2025 against the Scheduled Castes PwBD
quota in the All-India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, in the
forthcoming academic session.
13. In backdrop of the factual matrix narrated supra and the comparative
higher merit secured by the appellant in the NEET-UG 2024
examination, we make it clear that the appellant shall not be required
to undergo the NEET-UG 2025 examination.
14. We further direct that the National Medical Commission shall forthwith
and not later than within a period of two months from today and at
any cost before the counselling for the 2025-2026 session commence,
complete the process of revising the guidelines in light of judgments
of this Court in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Sciences2
and Anmol v. Union of India & Ors.3 so that no deserving candidate
in the PwBD category is denied admission into the MBBS course in
spite of his/her/their entitlement. It must be ensured that systemic
discrimination against persons with benchmark disabilities, whether
direct or indirect, is eliminated and that the admission process upholds
their right to equal opportunity and dignity.
15. The constitutional promise of equality is not merely formal but
substantive, requiring the State to take affirmative measures to ensure
that PwD and PwBD can meaningfully participate in all spheres of
life, including professional education. We emphasize that reasonable
accommodation is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right
flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of our Constitution. When
2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4283.
3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387.
666 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
administrative authorities create arbitrary barriers that exclude
qualified PwBD candidates, they not only violate statutory provisions
but also perpetuate the historical injustice and stigmatisation. The
fundamental rights and the dignity of PwD and PwBD candidates
must be protected by ensuring that assessment of their capabilities
is individualised, evidence-based, and free from stereotypical
assumptions that have no scientific foundation.
16. Before parting, we express our wholehearted appreciation for
Mr. Rahul Bajaj and Mr. Amar Jain, learned counsel, both persons
with benchmark disability (zero vision), for the excellent assistance
provided by them during the course of hearing of the present matter.
We also express our sincere appreciation to Mr. Gaurav Agarwal,
learned senior counsel, for his pro bono services and Ms. Archana
Pathak Dave, learned ASG, for her pragmatic approach in the matter.
17. The impugned order dated 12th November, 2024, passed by the High
Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 967 of 2024 is set aside.
18. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in these terms. No
order as to costs.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Education"Sign in to search