Holding

A candidate with a locomotor disability exceeding 80% may be admitted to an MBBS course if functional competency can be demonstrated with reasonable accommodations, rendering the AIIMS‑Nagpur assessment invalid.

Summary

The appellant, Om Rathod, a student with lower‑limb myopathy, secured a high All‑India PwD rank in the NEET‑UG 2024 exam but was declared ineligible for MBBS admission by the AIIMS‑Nagpur Medical Board, which assessed his disability at 88%—above the 80% ceiling in the RPWD guidelines. The High Court upheld the Board’s assessment, but the Supreme Court, on special leave, ordered a re‑assessment at AIIMS‑Delhi, noting the lack of clear guidelines for assessing disability with assistive devices. A functional competency test conducted by an expert (Dr. Satendra Singh) found Rathod capable of pursuing MBBS with reasonable accommodations, leading the Court to quash the AIIMS‑Nagpur report and direct a super‑numerary seat for him. The Court also directed the National Medical Council to formulate fresh, inclusive guidelines and mandated that Disability Assessment Boards include a doctor with disability and follow a functional‑competence model. The appeal was allowed, granting Rathod admission and ordering systemic reforms.

Issues considered

The legality of disqualifying a candidate with >80% locomotor disability from MBBS admission under the RPWD Act and its guidelines.
Whether the Disability Assessment Boards must assess functional competence using assistive devices rather than relying solely on quantified disability percentages.
Whether the High Court correctly applied the statutory and regulatory standards governing disability assessment.
The need for fresh guidelines and procedural reforms for admission of persons with disabilities into medical courses.

Legislation cited

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016s. 2525, s. 2(y), s. 3, s. 323

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Appellant had lower limb myopathy, a locomotor disability. He secured an all India PwD rank of 84 and a State PwD rank of 4 in NEET UG Examination 2024. However, was held ineligible to pursue MBBS course by the designated Medical Board holding that the appellant was 88% disabled which was higher than the maximum permissible disability fixed by the regulation governing admission in the PWD category for MBBS course. By way of the impugned judgment, High Court held that the certification of the degree of disability was in

Subjects

MBBS courseNEET UG Examination 2024DisabilityLocomotor disabilityMuscular DystrophyPwD categoryPersons with DisabilityNational Medical CouncilMedical Board at AIIMSAIIMS NagpurAIIMS DelhiDisability assessmentsMaximum permissible disabilityGuidelines for admission of students with ‘Specified Disabilities’Functional competenceNEET Disability CertificateAssistive devicesOngoing counsellingDisability Assessment BoardDoctor or health professional with disabilityFunctional competency testReasonable accommodationFundamental rightsPreambleArticles 21, 19, 14, 15Disability rightsConvention on Rights of Persons with DisabilitySupernumerary seatInaccessibilityNon-inclusion

Judgment

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2187 : 2024 INSC 836

Om Rathod
v.
The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 12110 of 2024)
25 October 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI,
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Appellant had lower limb myopathy, a locomotor disability. He secured
an all India PwD rank of 84 and a State PwD rank of 4 in NEET UG
Examination 2024. However, was held ineligible to pursue MBBS
course by the designated Medical Board at AIIMS, Nagpur holding
that the appellant was 88% disabled which was higher than the
maximum permissible disability fixed by the regulation governing
admission in the PWD category for MBBS course. By way of the
impugned judgment, High Court held that the certification of the
degree of disability was in accordance with prescribed procedures.

Headnotes†
Education/Educational Courses – MBBS course – NEET UG
Examination 2024 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 – As per the Guidelines for admission of students with
‘Specified Disabilities’ under the 2016 Act w.r.t admission
in MBBS Course, persons having over 80% locomotor
disabilities may be admitted to a medical course on a case
to case basis after assessing their functional competence
to navigate academic and practical requirements – Vide
NEET Disability Certificate dtd. 13.08.24, Medical board at
AIIMS, Nagpur assessed the appellant’s disability to be 88%
and therefore, held the appellant ineligible to pursue MBBS
course – Writ petition filed by appellant, dismissed by High
Court – Challenged – Supreme Court directed re-assessment
of the appellant by Medical Board at AIIMS, Delhi which
concurred with the AIIMS Nagpur Medical Board – However,
the Board noted lack of clear guidelines to assess disability
with assistive devices in terms of the guidelines – Direction
for re-assessment of the appellant for a functional competency
test – Appellant was assessed to be eligible for pursuing the
*Author
2188 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

MBBS course with assistive devices – Permitted to participate
in the ongoing counselling – Appellant sought seat at the
college allocated in the initial rounds of counselling or at any
college in his home State-Maharashtra:
Held: Appellant was subjected to protracted and mentally exhausting
assessments that failed to apply the correct standards, leading to
a declaration of ineligibility – Report dtd. 13.08.24 of the Disability
Assessment Board of AIIMS, Nagpur quashed as it did not apply
the statutory and regulatory standards applicable to the assessment
of a person with disability– Impugned judgment of High Court set
aside – A supernumerary seat be created at the AIIMS, Nagpur and
allocated to the appellant if he has not already secured a seat at a
college of his choosing – College be given the report dtd.20.10.24
which makes suggestions as to the accommodations which may be
extended to the appellant – Judgement to apply in rem. [Paras 32, 59]

Directions by Supreme Court – Admission to persons with
disabilities into medical courses – Formulation of guidelines –
Inclusion of persons with disability in the medical profession –
Constitution of India – Preamble; Articles 21, 19, 14, 15 –
Preambular virtue of fraternity; Right to life, dignity, freedom,
equality and non-discrimination:
Held: National Medical Council to issue fresh guidelines for admitting
persons with disabilities into medical courses – The committee
formulating the guidelines must include experts with disability or
persons who have worked on disability justice – The guidelines
shall comply with the judgments of this Court and contemporary
advancements in disability justice – The Disability Assessment
Boards shall eschew from a benchmark model to test the functional
competence of medical aspirants with disability – The second
respondent shall issue appropriate guidelines in this regard – The
Disability Assessment Boards shall include a doctor or health
professional with disability as per the directions of the first respondent
dated 24 March 2022 – Conduct of the Disability Assessment
Boards shall be fair, transparent and in compliance with principles
of the rule of law – Attention must be paid to ensure that candidates
appearing before the Board do not feel uncomfortable on account
of physical or attitudinal barriers – Reasonable accommodation is
a gateway right to avail all other fundamental, human and legal
rights for persons with disabilities – Non-availability of reasonable
accommodation amounts to discrimination and violates substantive
equality of persons with disabilities – The inclusion of persons with
disability in the medical profession would enhance the quality of
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2189

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

healthcare and meet the preambular virtue of fraternity and the
guarantees in Articles 21, 19, 14 and 15 of the Constitution –
Applicants to the NEET examination must be informed about the
compliance of accessibility norms and provisions of reasonable
accommodation available at colleges – The respondents shall issue
appropriate directions to create a database with relevant information
on accessibility and reasonable accommodation – Enabling Units
at medical colleges shall act as points of contact for persons with
disability desirous of accessing clinical accommodations. [Para 60]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Shift from
charity based to a rights based approach – Scheme of the
Act – Discussed – Appendix "H-1" of the Guidelines regarding
admission of students with ‘Specified Disabilities’ under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with respect to
admission in MBBS Course – Purposive interpretation of –
Fair assessment of competence – Principle of reasonable
accommodation – Functional competency test – Purpose
stated – Constitution of India – Articles 21, 19, 14, 15 – Right
to life, dignity, freedom, equality and non-discrimination.
Disability Assessment Boards – Role; approach – Stated.

Case Law Cited
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 2860; Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures [2024] 7 SCR 246 :
2024 INSC 465; Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India [2021]
13 SCR 823 : (2023) 2 SCC 209; Vikash Kumar v. UPSC [2021]
12 SCR 311 : (2021) 5 SCC 370; Avni Prakash v. NTA [2021]
11 SCR 891 : (2023) 2 SCC 286; A (Mother of X) v. State of
Maharashtra [2024] 5 SCR 470 : 2024 INSC 371; Bambhaniya
Sagar Vashrambhai v. Union of India WP (C) 856 of 2023; Purswani
Ashutosh v. Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 422; Omkar Gond v.
Union of India (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2401; Vidhi Himmat
Katariya v. Union of India [2019] 12 SCR 821 : (2019) 10 SCC
20; Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 454 :
(1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217; Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India
[2020] 2 SCR 727 : (2020) 4 SCC 727 – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
Judith Heumann & Kristen Joiner (2020). Being Heumann: An
Unrepentant Memoir of a Disability Rights Activist. Beacon Press :
Boston, Massachusetts; Singh S, Medical Council of India’s new
2190 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

guidelines on admission of persons with specified disabilities: Unfair,
discriminatory and unlawful. Indian J Med Ethics. 2019 Jan-Mar;
4(1) NS: 29-34. DOI: 10.20529/IJME.2018.064; UN. Committee
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (22nd sess). CRPD/C/
IND/CO/1. Concluding observations on the initial report of India :
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Geneva :
UN, 29 Oct. 2019 – referred to.

List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

List of Keywords
MBBS course; NEET UG Examination 2024; Medical aspirant;
Disability; Locomotor disability; Muscular Dystrophy; PwD category;
Persons with Disability; National Medical Council; Medical Board
at AIIMS; AIIMS, Nagpur; AIIMS, Delhi; Disability assessments;
Maximum permissible disability; Guidelines for admission of
students with ‘Specified Disabilities’; Functional competence to
navigate academic and practical requirements; NEET Disability
Certificate; Assistive devices; Ongoing counselling; Disability
Assessment Board; Doctor or health professional with disability;
Functional competency test; Functional disability; Quantified
disability; Functional assessment; Disability law in India; Shift
from charity based to a rights based approach; Reasonable
accommodation; Fundamental rights; Preamble; Justice, liberty
and equality, fraternity; Disability rights; Convention on Rights of
Persons with Disability; Eradication of discrimination; Transparency,
fairness and consistency; Supernumerary seat; Inaccessibility;
Non-inclusion.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12110 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in WPC No. 4918 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv., Talha Abdul Rahman, M Shaz Khan,
Taha Bin Tasneem, Sudhanshu Tewari, Rafid Akhter, Faizan Ahmad,
Prannv Dhawan, Advs. for the Appellant.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2191

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Gaurav Sharma, Sr. Adv.,
Shashank Bajpai, Ms. Sushma Verma, Karunesh Kumar Shukla,
Gopi Chand, Amrish Kumar, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan,
Paranjay Tripathi, Rajesh Raj, Ms. Ankita Dogra, Advs. for the
Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

Table of Contents*

A. Background........................................................................ 3
B. Pillar to post: scaling the ramparts of courts and
hospitals.............................................................................. 5
C. The maze to inclusion: RPWD Act and guidelines............... 15
D. Principle of fair assessment of competence: reasonable
accommodation and the functional competence
model................................................................................... 19
E. Building bridges for the nation: principle to practice......... 31
F. Conclusions........................................................................ 42

The Stage
We didn’t go up to the stage
no one asked us, actually
only by pointing fingers
they showed us our place
and we sat there;
‘great’, they exclaimed.
And they went up on the stage
started narrating us our own sorrows
but, ‘our sorrows remained ours
never became theirs…’
– Waharu Sonavane1

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
2192 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

A. Background
1. Legal principles and their application often stand at opposite banks
of the river. The distance between them is manifest before us. The
appellant has undergone a crash course in navigating the Indian
legal system - from statutory prescriptions, regulatory stipulations,
High Court adjudication, regulatory and court ordered disability
assessments to the race to justice before this Court. Four assessments
later - the appellant’s fate now hangs in the balance and this
Court is asked to interfere to ensure that the balance does not tilt
unfavourably and fall into disarray. Vital foundational questions have
been thrown open for debate before this Court. What is expected of
an Indian medical graduate? Can a person with disability aspire to
meet these expectations? Or is their only option to resign their fate
to a society that places a premium on disabled bodies - every step
of the way? Academic and practical rigour of the medical profession
notwithstanding, should the journey of an Indian to navigate their
way into the medical profession be this arduous? Is our collective
obsession with disability too strong to focus on a person’s ability?
Is our nation ready to benefit from the talent and experiences of
persons with disabilities? Or should we continue to sacrifice them
at the altar of technicalities?
2. We answer these questions by rooting them in the web of
Constitutional law principles, statute, regulatory framework and
guidelines which are germane for this case. The bone of contention
before us turns on the manner in which the Disability Assessment
Boards must function while certifying the eligibility of a candidate
for the MBBS course. The appellant has lower limb myopathy -
a locomotor disability. The appellant has been an academic
success. He secured an A1 grade in his matriculate (Class X) and
intermediary (Class XII) examination held by the Central Board
of Secondary Education. He aspires, now, to enter the medical
profession. With this resolve, the appellant appeared for the NEET
UG Examination 2024 on 5 May 2024 under the unreserved/
EWS-PwD category and secured 601 marks (out of a total marks
of 720). This placed the appellant at an all India PwD rank of 84
and a State PwD rank of 4. Despite having a Disability Certificate

1 Poem translated from its original version in Marathi – written in the context of the tribal movement being
co-opted by persons who claim to speak on their behalf while simultaneously othering them.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2193

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

dated 24 January 2021 which was to be valid until 2025 – the
appellant submitted himself to the mandatory assessment to get
his eligibility certified by a designated medical board at AIIMS,
Nagpur. Appendix “H-1” of the Guidelines regarding admission of
students with ‘Specified Disabilities’ under the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 with respect to admission in MBBS Course
prescribes that persons having over eighty percent disability may
be admitted to a medical course on a case by case basis after
assessing their functional competence to navigate academic and
practical requirements.
3. The medical board at AIIMS, Nagpur comprised of an Associate
Professor in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; an Assistant
Professor of Orthopaedics; and a Professor who was the Chairman
of the Disability Board at AIIMS, Nagpur. The Board, by a NEET
Disability Certificate dated 13 August 2024, opined that the appellant
is 88% disabled and is therefore ineligible to pursue an MBBS/
Dental course.

B. Pillar to post: scaling the ramparts of courts and hospitals
4. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution before the Nagpur bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, challenging the NEET Disability Certificate
issued by AIIMS, Nagpur. The High Court by the impugned judgment
dated 3 September 2024 dismissed the writ petition and held that
the certification of the degree of disability was in accordance with
prescribed procedures. The appellant challenged the impugned
judgment by a petition for special leave before this Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution.
5. On 3 October 2024, this Court directed the appellant to appear
before a medical board at AIIMS, Delhi to reassess him keeping in
mind the circular issued by the first respondent on 24 March 2022.
The circular inter alia made mandatory directions to include a doctor
or health professional with disability in every Disability Assessment
Board. The appellant accordingly reported to AIIMS, Delhi at 11 AM
on 5 October 2024. The five member board submitted its report
dated 9 October 2024 inter alia finding that there were no changes
in most disability components despite assistive devices. The report
also stated that there are no clear guidelines available to assess
the disability with assistive devices. The report states as follows:
2194 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“The candidate was re-assessed with the assistive device
(single hand crutch & motorised scooty). There was minimal
to no change in most of the components for disability
evaluation as per the GOI gazette (March 2024) with these
assistive devices. The possibility of wheelchair usage was
also explored which might be required for better efficiency
in ambulation component in near future. However, there
are no clear guidelines available to assess the disability
with assistive devices as per the Govt. of India gazette
guideline. Further it is to be noted that safety, efficiency
and agility of movements are needed to independently use
the devices and many times some manual support is also
required which may not be available to the candidate at
all times and may affect the safety of the candidate and
the patients during the skills based training provided in the
various setups in the labs and hospitals during the MBBS
course training. The Board after careful evaluations of
all possibilities concurs with the opinion of the previous
medical board held at AIIMS Nagpur dated 13.08.2024
that the disability is above 80% even with consideration of
assistive devices and also both upper limbs have significant
involvement and hence the candidate is ineligible to pursue
MBBS course.”
6. The appellant in his affidavit countering the AIIMS, Delhi report has
elucidated his experience. He submits that he was made to wait for
long hours on each date when he was asked to appear. He was not
given clear directions or information about the steps to follow in his
assessment. The first stage of the examination was conducted by
an able bodied doctor from the PMR department who was unduly
focused on the medical condition of the appellant. He underwent a
large number of tests including climbing stairs and power assessment.
When the appellant informed the Board that he used (i) a wheelchair,
(ii) crutches, and (iii) an electric scooter for mobility, he was asked
why he did not bring his wheelchair. To this, the appellant stated that
bringing a wheelchair was not logistically possible given that he had
travelled from his place of residence at Washim in Maharashtra to
Delhi by air, on short notice.
7. The Board did not ask him any questions which would allow the
appellant to counter the basis for the Board’s findings. He was
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2195

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

only asked (i) if he would be able to undertake his professional
duties and (ii) if he could conduct his daily activities. He responded
positively to both and stated that he had already completed his
secondary education with the same disability and had managed
to navigate adequately thus far. Eventually, the AIIMS, Delhi
report dated 9 October 2024 fell into the error of being a mere
benchmark evaluation report. The report adjudged the disability of
the appellant to be 80% - down from 88% which was reported by
AIIMS, Nagpur on 13 August 2024. While the AIIMS, Nagpur report
did not evaluate the appellant with assistive devices to assess his
functional ability, the AIIMS Delhi report did use these devices but
ultimately opined that there were no government guidelines on the
use of such devices.
8. By an order dated 18 October 2024, this Court noted the statement
of AIIMS, Delhi on the lack of clear guidelines and observed that the
AIIMS report failed to evaluate the (i) extent of functional disability
of the appellant; and (ii) the extent to which the use of assistive
devices would have the potential to bring the functional disability
within the permissible limits in terms of the government notification.
9. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v.
Union of India,2 we requested Dr Satendra Singh of Infinity Ability to
assist the Court on whether notwithstanding the quantified disability,
the appellant can pursue the MBBS degree course. In arriving at
his evaluation, Dr Satendra Singh was requested to examine the
appellant and to have due regard to such assistive devises and
their potential to assist the appellant to fulfil the requirements of the
degree course in medicine.
10. The appellant made himself available at the University College of
Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, University of Delhi
at 10 AM on 19 October 2024. He was made to undergo functional
assessment and was asked to demonstrate his competence at the
Medical Simulation Centre at the Physiology and Pathology central
lab. Dr Satendra Singh gauged the accommodations necessary for
the appellant by interacting with him to understand his limitations
and barriers. Accordingly, the following premises were established
in assessing the appellant:

2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860.
2196 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“Disability: Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy (mobility-
related physical disability)
Potential Functional limitations: Inability to stand for long
hours; difficulty in standing suddenly from sitting position
Potential Barriers to learning: Lack of accessible spaces
What is being assessed: Cognitive, psychomotor and
affective skills and ability to arrive at a diagnosis using
patient history and examination in line with NMC’s five
roles of an Indian Medical Graduate in CBME
Appropriate and reasonable accommodation: Given
the tight space of clinical environments, smaller/compact
scooters are a good choice which Om is already using. This
will allow him to continue with the pace and demands of
a busy ward/OPD/OT independently and is much superior
than a manual wheelchair which is often dependent on
human assistance.”
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
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2197

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

d) Would the proposed accommodation pose an undue
hardship on the medical college (budgets wise)? Not
in my opinion”
12. In stark contrast to the approach of the two AIIMS reports, when Dr
Satendra Singh assessed the appellant on the request of this Court,
he carried out a functional assessment. The process to determine
the clinical accommodation for the appellant involved having a
frank conversation with him about the barriers he faces - physical,
educational and attitudinal. The approach adopted was not whether
the appellant would succeed in a medical college but was rather
to ensure that the appellant has equal opportunity and can start at
the same level playing field as his classmates. After determining
the accommodations needed by the appellant through an interview
process, some questions were posed to him. These questions were
as follows:
"i. How does muscular dystrophy impact you in daily life?
ii. How have you mitigated this impact in an educational
setting (Class X,XII)?
iii. What, if anything, exacerbates or worsens your
disability?
iv. Do you anticipate needing to receive treatment such
that you may need to “step out” of the curriculum
at some point to attend to disability-related needs?
v. Have you ever seen a clinical setting, or do you
anticipate additional barriers during the clinical
portion of your MBBS? (prompted with example
competencies)
vi. Have you reviewed the MBBS curriculum? If not, we
can do this together to identify any potential barriers.
vii. Have you ever used assistive technology to mitigate
the impact of your disability?
viii. Are you aware of adaptive equipment used to navigate
the clinical environment.
ix. What are your biggest concerns about entering the
MBBS program?
2198 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

x. What is your understanding of reasonable
accommodation which you repeatedly mentioned in
your affidavit.”
13. Based on the preliminary conversation, the report noted that the
appellant is concerned about the differential treatment which was
meted out to him by previous Disability Assessment Boards despite
him having successfully navigated with the disability for his entire
life. The appellant was surprised that he was being doubted and his
accomplishments questioned without being afforded an opportunity
with simulation labs and reasonable accommodations.
14. The appellant was then made to undergo a functional assessment
which included being given various instruments which he would be
required to use in his course and profession. The nature of the tasks
given to the appellant shows that they were done in progression, with
basic instruments being given first, followed by the use of assistive
devices to examine his abilities and then being tested in other, more
complex tasks. The report states as follows:
“1.4 Functional assessment: Om was first shown how to
record blood pressure using a mercury sphygmomanometer,
how to elicit reflexes, and how to use a tuning fork to check
for deafness. He was then asked to demonstrate these
skills, which he successfully did, showing his eagerness
to learn after just one demonstration. Next, he was given
a foldable crutch to test whether it could assist him in
standing from a seated position, but I observed that he
has developed his own coping mechanisms to navigate
physical barriers. This is often an innovative strategy used
by people with disabilities in environments that are not
fully accessible.
He was then taken to the laboratory and asked to
reach examination tables of three different heights. He
was able to access two of them, demonstrating that an
adjustable examination table would be a suitable clinical
accommodation for him.
Afterward, he was taken to our Medical Simulation Centre,
where he was shown how to perform Cardiopulmonary
Resuscitation (CPR) in a simulated real-life scenario
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2199

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

of a person lying on the floor after a heart attack. After
the demonstration, Om sat down on the floor to perform
CPR. Considering it was his first experience in such
a lab (his previous two assessments did not involve
simulation), and to make the situation less intimidating,
he was first guided on a baby mannequin, which he
successfully managed. He also succeeded in giving an
intravenous and intramuscular deltoid injection, as well
as inserting a cannula after a demonstration. Please find
some pictures below.
For Om, who uses a mobility scooter, the functional
limitation lies in his inability to stand independently. This
may pose a challenge during clinical rotations in surgical
settings, where he would need to be at standing height to
observe procedures. Potential solutions could include using
a standing or hydraulic wheelchair, providing remote visual
access to the surgery via a monitor, or arranging for all
parties to sit during minor surgeries. These accommodations
can help mitigate barriers without imposing undue burden
The disability access appointee or Coordinator of the
Enabling Unit or Equal Opportunity Cell (as mandated
by the UGC) at Om’s future medical college should
interact with him to propose these accommodations on
an individual basis before the preclinical, paraclinical, and
clinical rotations begin.”
15. The report thereafter gave detailed (but not exhaustive) suggestions
for clinical accommodations for the appellant during his course - for
each of the years of his education and the mandatory internship. The
report finally outlined the overall assessment of the appellant and
declared him to be suitable, with appropriate clinical accommodations,
to pursue MBBS. The section of the report on overall assessment
reads as follows:
“4. Overall assessment
4.1 Throughout the assessment, Om’s diagnosed muscular
dystrophy has not interfered with his learning or self-care.
He quickly adapted to new situations and found interesting
and unique ways to complete tasks in unfamiliar settings.
For example, while initially unfamiliar with the full extent of
2200 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the physical skills required in the MBBS program during the
simulation lab experience, Om expressed confidence that
these barriers could be easily mitigated using his existing
compensatory skills and creative approaches to procedures.
As an 18-year-old who flew on an airplane for the first
time while traveling for reassessment in Delhi, Om showed
remarkable zeal and passion for becoming a doctor and
is suitable with appropriate clinical accommodations
to pursue MBBS.
Om should be given opportunities to demonstrate how he
can successfully navigate clinical environments. Students
with disabilities should be “Welcomed and Valued,” as
demonstrated by the General Medical Council UK’s
guidelines on reasonable accommodation (GMC, UK). The
NMC should consider implementing similar regulations
to guide faculty and minimize attitudinal barriers rooted
in the medical model of disability. In the post-RPDA
(Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act) era, with the
advent of technology, we must welcome and recognize
the competence of students with disabilities.
4.2 Progressive Disability – Is It a Concern?
Such concerns fall into the realm of ableism. It is “a system
of assigning value to people’s bodies and minds based
on societally constructed ideas of normalcy, productivity,
desirability, intelligence, excellence, and fitness. These
constructed ideas are deeply rooted in eugenics, anti-
Blackness, misogyny, colonialism, imperialism, and
capitalism. This systemic oppression that leads to people
and society determining people’s value based on their
culture, age, language, appearance, religion, birth or living
place, “health/wellness”, and/or their ability to satisfactorily
re/produce, “excel” and “behave.” You do not have to be
disabled to experience ableism” (Lewis, 2022).
In Iyer Seetharaman Venugopalan vs. Union of
India, the Bombay High Court initially denied an MD in
Psychiatry to a blind doctor who had retinitis pigmentosa
and progressively lost his vision. However, thanks to the
intervention of the Supreme Court under Hon’ble CJI,
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2201

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

he was allowed to pursue Psychiatry and is now in his
final year, doing successfully. Similarly, Dr. Sharad Philip,
who also experienced progressive vision loss, successfully
completed his MD in Psychiatry from NIMHANS Bangalore
and is now a faculty member at AIIMS Guwahati.
Om can similarly choose to either remain a general
MBBS doctor or pursue a specialty that is less physically
demanding. Only he is best placed to take this decision
after completing MBBS. We should not restrict a bright
student on the basis of assumptions and ableist
beliefs.”
16. Accordingly, the appellant was assessed to be eligible for pursuing
the MBBS course with assistive devices. The second respondent
has fairly accepted the eligibility of the appellant and has only joined
issue with the fact that the assessment of candidate by a doctor
must comply with the rules formulated under the statutory framework.
These rules require the assessing doctor to be a domain expert in
disabilities. In the present case this Court requested Dr Satendra
Singh to assess the appellant which shall not be a precedent. To
that extent the submission of the second respondent is accepted.
We may note that this Court was constrained to order a functional
competency test due to the failure of the previous two Boards to
apply the legally permissible standard. The appellant shall not be
made to undergo any further assessments as part of his admission
to the MBBS course. On 25 October 2024 this Court granted leave
and directed that the appellant be permitted to participate in the
ongoing counselling process arising out of NEET UG 2024.
17. Unfortunately, this run hardly obviates further labour. The appellant
finds himself re-entering the NEET counselling process after a lapse of
valuable time. He was allocated a seat at the Dr Shankarrao Chavan
Government Medical College, Nanded in the first and second rounds
of All India Level counselling. Now, stray vacancies for the category
of persons with disabilities at the All India Level are available in only
nine colleges, none of which are in the home State of the appellant –
Maharashtra. The appellant submits that none of the nine colleges
are compliant with accessibility norms and adequate support systems
necessary for him to enjoy a level playing field. The appellant now
prays that this Court create a seat for him at the college which he
was allocated in the initial rounds of counselling or for that matter at
2202 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

any college in Maharashtra. The run of the appellant from Washim
to Nagpur and Delhi accompanied by several assessments now
stands the chance of being fruitless. The appellant prays that this
Court exercises its power to do complete justice under Article 142 of
the Constitution. Additionally, the appellant prays that this Court may
issue directives on the manner in which the grievances of exclusion
of disabled candidates is to be considered inter alia by courts.

C. The maze to inclusion: RPWD Act and guidelines
18. Section 323 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 20164
stipulates that all Government and Government aided institutions of
higher learning shall reserve not less than five percent of seats for
persons with benchmark disability. The enactment of the RPWD Act
in 2016 marked a paradigm shift in disability law in India from charity
based to a rights based approach. Accordingly, the erstwhile Medical
Council of India5 formulated guidelines on admission of persons
with specific disability in MBBS courses. The Government of India
approved the proposal of the committee on 28 January 2019 and
issued a notification in the gazette on 5 February 2019.
19. The report stipulated the guidelines in Appendix “H” which laid down
six categories of locomotor disabilities including muscular dystrophy.
All persons with a locomotor disability above eighty percent were
rendered ineligible for medical courses. Appendix “H” was substituted
by Appendix “H-1” on 13 May 2019. The amendment allowed
persons with more than eighty percent locomotor disabilities to
pursue medical courses on a case to case basis. The new appendix
states as follows:
“Persons with more than 80% disability may also be allowed
on case to case basis and their functional competency
will be determined with the aid of assistive devices,
if it is being used, to see if it is brought below 80% and

3 “32. Reservation in higher educational institutions.—(1) All Government institutions of higher
education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not
less than five per cent. seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.
(2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age relaxation of five years for
admission in institutions of higher education.”
4 “RPWD Act”
5 “MCI”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2203

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

whether they possess sufficient motor ability as required
to pursue and complete the course satisfactorily.”
(emphasis supplied)

20. The amended guidelines brought about a welcome change by
eschewing from a purely benchmark model to a functional ability
model. For candidates with more than eighty percent locomotor
disability, the guidelines allow their functional competency to be
determined using assistive devices to see if it can be brought below
80%. The second respondent has submitted that a new committee
will be constituted to recommend new guidelines for admission of
persons with disabilities into medical courses.
21. The report of the MCI (the erstwhile version of the second respondent)
which was the basis of the existing guidelines evidently found itself
working in the remnants of the pre-RPWD Act legal regime. Besides
making archaic observations requiring persons with disabilities to
‘introspect and assess themselves whether they are likely to meet
MCI standards and outcomes’ the guidelines also noted the definition
of reasonable accommodation in Section 2(y)6 of the RPWD Act. The
reference was only to further state that the standard of competence
cannot be lowered in the name of accommodation. The observations,
made without specific context on the standard or the accommodation
in question, states as follows:
“MCI is aware of this provision and respects it. However,
MCI cannot agree to enforce reasonable accommodation
that would alter or lower the standard of competence –
which exists to protect patients – that is required. Such
an accommodation, if granted would be ‘unreasonable’,
and not reasonable. Moreover, in some cases, even with
reasonable accommodation, it may not be possible for
every disabled medical student to successfully and safely
undertake all stages of medical education and training ”
22. From promoting self-rejection of disabled medical aspirants to
assuming that their accommodations would lower the standard of

6 “(y) “reasonable accommodation” means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments,
without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with
disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others;”
2204 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

competence and would regardless be fruitless – the guidelines have
charted their way into disrepute. Vitally, the resistance to alter the
standard in a framework that has historically effaced a marginalised
group – namely disabled persons other than in the capacity of a
patient – is antithetical to any rights based approach to disability law.
Many other issues of critical importance arise from these guidelines
which are not germane to evaluate the case before us but may be
open for an appropriate proceeding.7 The current guidelines allow
persons with more than eight percent locomotor disability to be
admitted to MBBS course on a case by case basis after a functional
competency to see whether their disability can be ‘brought below
80%.’ Before proceeding to analyse this guideline, it is essential that
we clarify the phrase ‘brought below 80%’.
23. The intention of the guideline in using the term ‘brought below 80%’
is ostensibly to mean that the functional assessment shall evaluate
if the person with disability can perform the tasks which they are
expected to perform as a student and a practitioner. The assumption
in using the phrase ‘below 80%’ defeats the purpose of the guideline
which is to allow candidates into the MBBS course on a case by case
basis. Bodies are not biological parts put together – each to serve a
pre-determined role. They are alive – with thoughts, feelings, dreams
and aspirations. All bodies – abled and disabled – are guaranteed
dignity under the Constitution. A person with disability has to navigate
the rigours of a society which was modelled on the premise of their
absence. The disability of a person is a reflection on the inaccessibility
of the society and not a comment upon the individual. A person does
not overcome disability but learns to navigate life with it. Disability
is not a thing to be overcome or brought down, but an attribute to
be acknowledged and accommodated. The use of the term ‘brought
below 80%,’ as well intentioned as it may be, fails at this foundational
premise. One cannot assume that all persons with more than 80%
locomotor disability are incompetent to pursue medicine when their
functional abilities have not been assessed. The medical model of
disability apparent in the phrase must give way to a social model of
disability which takes into account the variety of experiences and

7 See Singh S, Medical Council of India’s new guidelines on admission of persons with specified
disabilities: Unfair, discriminatory and unlawful. Indian J Med Ethics. 2019 Jan-Mar; 4(1) NS: 29-34. DOI:
10.20529/IJME.2018.064.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2205

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

outcomes which persons with disabilities have when they interact
with different kinds of societies and accommodations.
24. In Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures,8 this Court opined that words
cultivate institutional discrimination and that the language of our
discourse ought to be inclusive rather than alienating. When it comes
to rights – language matters. Words may not always adequately reflect
the intention of the drafter. Some words may be used unwittingly,
without knowledge of their harmful consequences. Nevertheless,
these words influence the thinking of others who hear them. Words
are the tools one deploys to formulate thoughts. An expansive
vocabulary allows people to think and articulate their thoughts better.
When we use appropriate and sensitive language, we aspire for the
quality of our thought to be broadened and evolve towards being
emancipatory and inclusive.

D. Principle of fair assessment of competence: reasonable
accommodation and the functional competence model
25. The guidelines (Appendix “H-1”) stipulate that the functional
competence of an aspirant with a locomotor disability above eighty
percent may be assessed with the help of assistive devices. A
purposive interpretation of this guideline requires us to interpret it
in light of the legislative intent of the governing statute, namely, the
RPWD Act. The RPWD Act is a watershed legislation for disability
rights in India. It honours India’s commitment at the international
level under the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disability. The
preamble to the RPWD Act states that:
“…AND WHEREAS the aforesaid Convention lays down
the following principles for the empowerment of persons
with disabilities,–
(a) respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy
including the freedom to make one’s own choices,
and independence of persons;
(b) non-discrimination;
(c) full and effective participation and inclusion in society;

8 [2024] 7 SCR 246 : 2024 INSC 465, para 74.
2206 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(d) respect for difference and acceptance of persons with
disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;
(e) equality of opportunity;
(f) accessibility;
(g) equality between men and women;
(h) respect for the evolving capacities of children with
disabilities and respect for the right of children with
disabilities to preserve their identities;...”
26. The Act harmonises the Constitutional promise of full citizenship
with action - by creating a framework in which persons with
disabilities may translate their rights into remedies. To establish
a bed of rights, Section 2 of the Act defines and acknowledges
barriers,9 discrimination,10 inclusive education11 and reasonable
accommodation.12 Section 3 of the Act affords the right to equality
and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities. The requirement
of assessing the functional competence of a medical aspirant with
over eighty percent locomotor disability recognises that assessment
must be done on a case to case basis. The method of assessment
by designated Disability Assessment Boards must therefore reflect
the approach and intent of the legal framework within which the
Boards operate. An assessment for functional competency entails an
analysis of the skill set which a person with disability must learn in
order to compete and pursue the medical course. This is a marked
difference from requiring a specific manner which a candidate must
use to achieve the outcome. For example, a functional competency
model would require a candidate to effectively communicate with

9 “(c) “barrier” means any factor including communicational, cultural, economic, environmental, institutional,
political, social, attitudinal or structural factors which hampers the full and effective participation of
persons with disabilities in society;”
10 “(h) “discrimination” in relation to disability, means any distinction, exclusion, restriction on the basis of
disability which is the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise
on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic,
social, cultural, civil or any other field and includes all forms of discrimination and denial of reasonable
accommodation;”
11 “(m) “inclusive education” means a system of education wherein students with and without disability
learn together and the system of teaching and learning is suitably adapted to meet the learning needs of
different types of students with disabilities;”
12 “(y) “reasonable accommodation” means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments,
without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with
disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others;”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2207

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

patients but would not require them to have speech or intact hands.
By focusing on the end points, the approach avoids any ableism to
seep into the assessment and avoids reifying that there is one and
only one manner to achieve desired outcomes.
27. A failure to create a conducive environment is a failure to provide
reasonable accommodation.13 Section 2(h) of the RPWD Act defines
discrimination in the context of disability as “any distinction, exclusion,
restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect
of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on
an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other
field and includes all forms of discrimination and denial of reasonable
accommodation.” The denial of reasonable accommodation is
expressly recognised as discrimination under the RPWD Act. For
the proper realisation of reasonable accommodation, a person with
disability must be identified using correct parameters and thereafter
the accommodations necessary have to be determined on a case
by case basis.
28. Justice KV Viswanathan speaking for this Court in Omkar Gond (supra)
has applied a purposive interpretation to the guidelines (Appendix “H-1”)
in the context of a medical aspirant with dialectic incapacity. This Court
held that the principle of reasonable accommodation in Section 2(y)
of the RPWD Act read with Article 41 of the Constitution necessarily
means that (i) a person cannot be disqualified merely on the basis of
a benchmark quantification. Such a criteria would be unconstitutional
for being overbroad; (ii) the Disability Assessment Board must not act
as monotonous automations looking at the quantified disability and
disqualifying candidates. The Board must examine if the candidate
can pursue the course with their disability; and (iii) in doing so, the
Board is not merely obliged to provide assistive devices and other
substances which will help the candidate. The true role of the Board
is to assess the competence of a candidate.
29. The principle of reasonable accommodation is not only statutorily
prescribed but also rooted in the fundamental rights guaranteed to
persons with disabilities under Part III of the Constitution. Reasonable
accommodation is a fundamental right. It is a gateway right for

13 Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India (2023) 2 SCC 209
2208 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

persons with disabilities to enjoy all the other rights enshrined in the
Constitution and the law. Without the gateway right of reasonable
accommodation, a person with disability is forced to navigate in a world
which excludes them by design. It strikes a fatal blow to their ability
to make life choices and pursue opportunities. From mundane tasks
of daily life to actions undertaken to realise personal and professional
aspirations - all are throttled when reasonable accommodations are
denied. Reasonable accommodation is a facet of substantive equality
and its failure constitutes discrimination. In Vikash Kumar v. UPSC,14
this Court adjudicated on whether a person with a writer’s cramp is
entitled to a scribe for writing the examination. Allowing the use of
a scribe, this Court held that the benchmark standard can only be
applied where expressly stipulated. Section 2(s) of the RPWD Act
defines a person with disability as a person with long term physical,
mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with
barriers, hinders their full and effective participation in society equally
with others. Therefore, a person - to be considered as a person with
disability - does not have to qualify any benchmark. The principle
that the rights and entitlements cannot be constricted by adopting a
benchmark as a condition precedent was also upheld by this Court
in Avni Prakash v. NTA.15
30. Section 3 of the RPWD Act affords persons with disabilities a right
to equality and non-discrimination. In Vikash Kumar (supra) this
Court held that Section 3 casts an affirmative obligation on the
Government and private entities to take steps to ensure reasonable
accommodation and utilize the capacity of persons with disabilities by
providing an appropriate environment. There is a positive obligation
to realise the inclusive premise in the concept of reasonable
accommodation. This includes the duty to create an environment
conducive for the development of persons with disabilities. This
Court has held that:
“... The accommodation which the law mandates is
‘reasonable’ because it has to be tailored to the
requirements of each condition of disability. The
expectations which every disabled person has are unique

14 [2021] 12 SCR 311 : (2021) 5 SCC 370
15 [2021] 11 SCR 891 : (2023) 2 SCC 286
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2209

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

to the nature of the disability and the character of the
impediments which are encountered as its consequence.
...
48. Failure to meet the individual needs of every
disabled person will breach the norm of reasonable
accommodation. Flexibility in answering individual needs
and requirements is essential to reasonable accommodation.
The principle of reasonable accommodation must also
account for the fact that disability based discrimination is
intersectional in nature. The intersectional features arise
in particular contexts due to the presence of multiple
disabilities and multiple consequences arising from
disability. Disability therefore cannot be truly understood
by regarding it as unidimensional.”
(emphasis supplied)

31. In Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India,16 while dealing with
a case of a CRPF officer with a mental health condition, this Court
had the opportunity to opine that disability is a social construct. Its
manifestation is contingent on the manner in which it interacts with
inter alia social, economic and historical factors. A one-size-fits-all
approach cannot be adopted in assessing disability. Disability is not a
universal but an individualistic conception based on the impairments
that a person has along with the barriers they face. Since the
barriers that every person faces are personal to their interpersonal
and structural surroundings - a general observation of permissible
behaviour cannot be made.
32. Central to the principles of reasonable accommodation and the
individualized experience of disability is the right to access legal
protections without undue mental hardship. If persons with disabilities
must repeatedly turn to the courts to correct the missteps of
authorities, then the rights recognized by this Court and the RPWD
Act risk becoming hollow assurances. For every person who has the
awareness or ability to move this Court there are numerous others

16 [2021] 13 SCR 823 : (2023) 2 SCC 209
2210 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

who suffer in silence. In the present case, the appellant was subjected
to protracted and mentally exhausting assessments that failed to
apply the correct standards, leading to a declaration of ineligibility.
His first journey by air was not for leisure or education but to undergo
a medical assessment in Delhi by an order of this Court. In this
process, valuable time was lost, and the appellant faced intrusive
and irrelevant questioning. Persons with disabilities often confront
systemic failures that engender a deep sense of disappointment -
a disappointment that reflects the frequency and predictability with
which the system fails them. Those with disabilities who aspire to
succeed must not only plan meticulously but also brace themselves
for the barriers they will inevitably face due to their disabilities.
33. For many persons with disabilities, the stress of medical visits -
the frequent trips to hospitals, the constant readiness to attend
appointments, the long waits, the uncertainty of a doctor’s availability,
and the anxiety over the results - forms part of their lived reality. At
the very least, they deserve a process and an outcome that is fair
and reasoned. The mental toll which processes before a medical
board has on people is recognised by this Court. In A (Mother
of X) v. State of Maharashtra,17 this Court had the opportunity to
opine on the shifting stances of medical boards which are often
observed in cases relating to medical termination of pregnancy. This
Court held that the lack of application of proper standards, simpliciter
recantation of statutory provision and changes in opinions cause
undue mental trauma to the pregnant person. In the backdrop of
the fear of prosecution which many registered medical practitioners
(RMP) have, this Court emphasised on the role of medical experts
to ensure that the fundamental rights of persons before them is not
compromised. The Court held as follows:
“...The opinion of the RMP is decisive in matters of
termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act. The purpose
of the opinion of the RMP borrows from the legislative intent
of the MTP Act which is to protect the health of a pregnant
person and facilitate safe, hygienic, and legal abortion. The
right to abortion is a concomitant right of dignity, autonomy

17 2024 INSC 371 : [2024] 5 SCR 470
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2211

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

and reproductive choice. This right is guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution. The decision to terminate
pregnancy is deeply personal for any person. The choice
exercised by a pregnant person is not merely about their
reproductive freedom but also about their agency as
recognised by this court in X v. State (NCT of Delhi). It
is therefore imperative that the fundamental right of
a pregnant person is not compromised for reasons
other than to protect the physical and mental health
of the pregnant person.
...
23. The opinion of the RMP or the medical board, as the
case may be, is indispensable under the scheme of the
MTP Act. This inadvertently gives the power to the
RMP or the medical board to stand in the way of a
pregnant person exercising their choice to terminate
the pregnancy. When there is fear or apprehension in the
mind of the RMP or the medical board it directly jeopardises
the fundamental freedoms of pregnant persons guaranteed
under the Constitution....”
(emphasis supplied)

34. Therefore, this Court has in the past opined on the pattern of conduct
in medical boards and sought to align it with legal and Constitutional
guarantees so as not to render the fundamental rights of persons
before these boards nugatory. In Bambhaniya Sagar Vashrambhai v.
Union of India,18 this Court has held that Disability Assessment
Boards must not adopt the approach of a recluse by confining
themselves to only quantifying the disability of a candidate. In that
case, the medical board had reported an unreasoned opinion that
the candidate was ineligible to continue his MBBS course on account
of being more than 80% disabled. Like in A (Mother of X) (supra),
the Court in Bambhaniya (supra) also emphasised the need for
elaborate reasons by the medical board while reporting their opinions.

18 WP (C) 856 of 2023.
2212 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

35. In Purswani Ashutosh v. Union of India,19 this Court was deciding
if a medical aspirant who had appeared for the NEET UG Exam
2018 was eligible for the reservation earmarked for persons with
disabilities. Despite having low vision impairment - the Medical
Board had opined that the petitioner in that case was ineligible for
reservation. While rejecting the opinion of the committee, this Court
held that a medical board cannot be allowed to override the statutory
mandate of providing reservation to persons with disabilities. No
committee has primacy over the law. We must emphasize that the
opinions of medical boards and committees are not only required
to adhere to legal standards but must also embody core principles
of the rule of law within their processes. This Court, following a
consistent line of precedent, has underscored the need for reasoned
and transparent decisions by such boards, given the profound impact
these opinions have on the life trajectory of individuals before them.
36. At its core, the rule of law demands predictable rules, equitable
application, unbiased adjudication and fair, transparent treatment of
individuals. In cases of assessment, this entails informing individuals
about the procedures, standards, tools, and all pertinent aspects
of the assessment in advance. Such transparency is essential to
avoid any arbitrary uncertainty arising from obscure or inconsistent
procedures. The procedures must be inherently fair and bear a rational
and cogent nexus with the purpose which is sought to be achieved.
A committee’s role goes beyond mere quantification of disability;
disability is a factual condition. The key question for a Disability
Assessment Board is whether an individual with a disability, aided by
modern scientific tools and devices, can enter the MBBS program.
Put differently, the board must assess whether it is infeasible for the
candidate to pursue a medical career with their disability.
37. Appendix “H-1” stipulates that assessments, particularly for individuals
with locomotor disabilities exceeding 80%, should focus on evaluating
functional competence. This functional competency test serves two
critical purposes. First, it emphasizes the abilities of the person with
a disability, assessing their capability rather than their limitations.
Second, it mandates an evaluation rooted in practical relevance,
aligning the candidate’s abilities with the functional requirements of

19 (2019) 14 SCC 422
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2213

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

the MBBS curriculum. Mere quantification of disability is insufficient
and fails to address the necessary criteria, a position this Court has
consistently upheld as unsatisfactory in such cases.20
38. At this point, it is imperative to deal with the holding of this Court in
Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. Union of India.21 In that case, persons
with disabilities who had appeared for the NEET UG Exam 2019
had moved this Court against their disqualification by the Medical
Board. Appendix “H” had been issued midway through the process
for admitting candidates from the NEET UG 2019. The primary
contention of the petitioners was that since the new guidelines were
issued in the middle of the admission process, they must not apply
to the ongoing process. The petitioners prayed to be tested against
the rules as they existed at the time of the application process for
the examination, namely, the MCI guidelines of 2017. On this count,
the Court ruled against the petitioners. The demurrer argument of the
petitioners was that they have not been tested on relevant parameters.
This Court while rejecting the argument noted that the petitioners
were disqualified for not meeting the eligibility criteria of having “both
hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of
motion.” Accordingly, the Court refused to sit in appeal over the expert
body’s opinion. The judgment of the Court in Vidhi Himmat Katariya
(supra) was specific to the facts of that case and did not involve any
question of interpretation or Constitutional analysis. The Court was
not examining any criteria and did not scrutinise the guidelines to
inspect their validity. The Court did not have the benefit of looking
at the firm roots which reasonable accommodation has grown within
the fold of the Constitution. Further, the judgments of this Court in
Vikash Kumar (supra), Avni Prakash (supra), Ravinder Dhariwal
(supra) and Omkar Gond (supra) were not available to the Court while
dealing with the case of Vidhi Himmat Katariya (supra). Therefore,
the opinion in Vidhi Himmat Katariya (supra) is inapplicable.
39. Courts are not expert bodies in matters of medicine. The competent
authority to adjudge the eligibility of a person to pursue a medical
course is the Disability Assessment Board. However, courts have the
jurisdiction to ensure that the manner in which the Board proceeds and

20 Omkar Gond v. Union of India (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2401; Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370;
Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India, WP (C) 856 of 2023
21 [2019] 12 SCR 821 : (2019) 10 SCC 20
2214 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

functions is in compliance with established principles of law. Ultimately,
the Court will have to rely on the opinion of the Board to adjudicate the
legal remedies of a person with disability. The interference of Courts
is not to supplant its opinion for that of the experts but to ensure that
a holistic evaluation of competence is conducted and that no person’s
career is set at naught with the stroke of a pen.
40. The Courts cannot be stupefied into inaction by the lack of adequate
framework or expertise when questions of fundamental rights emerge.
No person forfeits their claim to education or other pursuits of life
on account of their disability. The flurry of cases concerning medical
aspirants with disability which has come before this Court shows that
the overarching issue is a sense of over medicalization of disabled
bodies by the Assessment Boards. The approach often taken, due to
inertia or unwittingly, is to assume that a person with disability may
not be eligible for pursuing the course and then to put the candidates
under tests to prove the assumption. The approach focuses more on
the disability of a person than their ability. This turns the principle of
reasonable accommodation on its head. The question instead that
the Board ought to ask itself is this - what measures can be taken
to ensure that the candidate with disability can start their MBBS
course on an equal footing with their prospective classmates? The
change in question brings a change in perspective. The only negative
answer to the question would be that - in line with contemporary
scientific advancements, no devices or accommodations can enable
the person with disability before them to compete at a level playing
field. Courts must ensure that the sanctity of the principles in the
RPWD Act and in the Constitution are not violated by the conduct
or the outcome of the assessment.

E. Building bridges for the nation: principle to practice
“But it taught me, at a very early age, that most things are
possible when you assume problems can be solved.”
― Judith Heumann22
(regarded as the mother of the disability rights movement)

22 Judith Heumann & Kristen Joiner (2020). Being Heumann: An Unrepentant Memoir of a Disability Rights
Activist. Beacon Press : Boston, Massachusetts.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2215

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

41. We started by noting that the principle and application of law have
stood at opposite banks of the river. The true mandate of the law is to
be an agent of inclusion and an abettor and executor of justice. Law
reflects the outlook of its wielder. A parochial legal system will create
laws which result in maldistribution of life chances and opportunities.
In India, we have adopted an emancipatory Constitution premised
on the fundamental virtues of equal dignity and access. The wielder
of the law, therefore, is rooted in a progressive grundnorm which
seeks to eschew from societal prejudices and biases.
42. The window to these progressive virtues is envisioned in the preamble
to the Constitution. The preamble, along with justice, liberty and
equality, seeks to secure to all citizens - “FRATERNITY assuring the
dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.” The
fundamental postulate of dignity which inheres in all people is intrinsic
to the idea of fraternity and national integration. Fraternity, far from
being mere collegiality among citizens, imagines a holistic sharing
of goals and aspirations. It recognizes that to progress together we
must join forces in our mutual advancement and emancipation. The
framing of the preambular virtue of fraternity identifies the dignity of
all individuals as a pre-condition. Dignity of the individual is assured
when they are given equal opportunity and the freedom to contribute
to the society - shoulder to shoulder with fellow citizens.
43. No nation can truly progress until all her people realize a stake in
their collective outcome. In one sense discrimination excludes the
aggrieved from the collective imagination of the nation. In another
sense the nation is deprived of the expertise and brilliance of those
who are discriminated. We aspire to have institutions and systems
which reflect the rich diversity of our country. The aspiration is one
rooted in our commitment to the nation. Diverse institutions are vital
to ensure the governance of a diverse nation. When persons with
disabilities are discriminated against, it not only affects their individual
aspirations and dignity - it strikes a blow to the entire nation and the
collective goal of integration and fraternity.
44. Justice PB Sawant concurring with the decision of the nine-Judge
bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India,23 has opined
that inequality ill-favours fraternity. Without equality of opportunity

23 [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 454 : (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217
2216 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

there can be no fraternity. Justice Sawant has articulated his holding
as follows:
“411. The aim of any civilised society should be to
secure dignity to every individual. There cannot be
dignity without equality of status and opportunity.
The absence of equal opportunities in any walk of social
life is a denial of equal status and equal participation
in the affairs of the society and, therefore, of its equal
membership. The dignity of the individual is dented in
direct proportion to his deprivation of the equal access to
social means. The democratic foundations are missing
when equal opportunity to grow, govern, and give one’s
best to the society is denied to a sizeable section of the
society. The deprivation of the opportunities may be direct
or indirect as when the wherewithals to avail of them are
denied. Nevertheless, the consequences are as potent.
412. Inequality ill-favours fraternity, and unity remains
a dream without fraternity. The goal enumerated
in the Preamble of the Constitution, of fraternity
assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity
and integrity of the nation must, therefore, remain
unattainable so long as the equality of opportunity
is not ensured to all.
413. Likewise, the social and political justice pledged
by the Preamble of the Constitution to be secured to all
citizens, will remain a myth unless first economic justice
is guaranteed to all. The liberty of thought and expression
also will remain on paper in the face of economic
deprivations. A remunerative occupation is a means
not only of economic upliftment but also of instilling
in the individual self-assurance, self-esteem and self-
worthiness. It also accords him a status and a dignity
as an independent and useful member of the society. It
enables him to participate in the affairs of the society
without dependence on, or domination by, others, and
on an equal plane depending upon the nature, security
and remuneration of the occupation. Employment is an
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2217

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

important and by far the dominant remunerative occupation,
and when it is with the Government, semi-Government
or Government-controlled organisation, it has an added
edge. It is coupled with power and prestige of varying
degrees and nature, depending upon the establishment
and the post. The employment under the State, by itself,
may, many times help achieve the triple goal of social,
economic and political justice.
(emphasis supplied)

45. Dr Martin Luther King Jr has famously remarked that “injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” When we allow
injustice to occur, we normalize the idea that fundamental rights and
freedoms are violable. The inviolability of our collective commitment
is weakened. Discrimination cracks open a wedge in the fabric of
the society - it violates the Constitution and erodes the humanity of
the person discriminated against. The discrimination can manifest
directly or indirectly. Its manifestation eats into our commitment to
each other and of the State to the people. In Prathvi Raj Chauhan v.
Union of India,24 a three-Judge Bench of this Court while dealing
with the validity of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 has opined that the Constitution is
also a pact between the people of India. It is a promise of oneness
and equality. The Court opined as follows:
“15. The Constitution of India is … a pact between people,
about the relationships that they guarantee to each other
(apart from the guarantee of liberties vis-à-vis the State)
in what was a society riven along caste and sectarian
divisions. That is why the preambular assurance that the
republic would be one which guarantees to its people
liberties, dignity, equality of status and opportunity and
fraternity.
16. It is this idea of India, — a promise of oneness of and
for, all people, regardless of caste, gender, place of birth,

24 [2020] 2 SCR 727 : (2020) 4 SCC 727
2218 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

religion and other divisions that Part III articulates in four
salient provisions : Article 15, Article 17, Article 23 and
Article 24. The idea of fraternity occupying as crucial a place
in the scheme of our nation’s consciousness and polity,
is one of the lesser explored areas in the constitutional
discourse of this Court. The fraternity assured by the
Preamble is not merely a declaration of a ritual handshake
or cordiality between communities that are diverse and
have occupied different spaces : it is far more. …”
46. What the movement for disability justice shares with other social
justice movements - such as the anti-caste movement, feminism
and queer and trans justice - is that they call into question the
fundamental arrangement of a society which has created prejudicial
structures. Inaccessibility and non-inclusion are taken as suspect
categories to question the prevalent social order. In doing so these
movements invite us to contribute to the national goal of fraternity
and integration. Far from being interruptive in the national journey -
calls for equal access and equal justice postulate a disruption in the
order of discrimination and prejudices so that we may carry on the
journey of national progress. They do not only champion the group
interest of a certain class of citizens but instead advocate for a larger
vision of a justice oriented society. A society where discrimination
and exclusion are addressed and eliminated will create a just and
equitable system for all persons regardless of their identities. To be
intersectional is to see the common goals across vectors of identities
by eliminating systems of discrimination. It is a call to eschew from
simplistic identity reductionism and to imagine meaningful remedies
for marginalised groups and persons. It calls for a world with equity
and justice where our uniqueness forms part of benign differences
among people and lends vibrance to our diversity. The Constitution
enables this project of fraternity by guaranteeing rights to life, dignity,
freedom, equality and non-discrimination inter alia under Articles 21,
19, 14, and 15.
47. When reasonable accommodation is denied to a person with
disability, it amounts to discrimination and violates the fundamental
rights of the aggrieved person and the preambular virtue of fraternity
along with justice, liberty and equality. Persons with disability are
not objects of pity or charity but an integral part of our society and
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2219

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

nation. The advancement of rights for persons with disabilities is a
national project along with eradication of all forms of discrimination. A
component of this project is the inclusion of persons with disabilities
in all pursuits of life.
48. In Vikash Kumar (supra) this Court opined that the most significant
loser of a rigid inaccessible system is the system itself. The Court
resonated the idea of a generation of persons with disabilities who
take it as their birthright to access the full panoply of entitlements.
This Court has held as follows:
“81. When competent persons with disabilities are unable
to realise their full potential due to the barriers posed in
their path, our society suffers, as much, if not more, as
do the disabled people involved. In their blooming and
blossoming, we all bloom and blossom. The most significant
loser as a consequence of UPSC’s rigid approach in this
case (of refusing to provide scribes to those not having
benchmark disabilities) is UPSC itself. For it is denying to
the nation the opportunity to be served by highly competent
people who claim nothing but access to equal opportunity
and a barrier-free environment.
...
98. Cases such as the present offer us an opportunity
to make a meaningful contribution in the project of
creating the RPwD generation in India. A generation of
disabled people in India which regards as its birthright
access to the full panoply of constitutional entitlements,
robust statutory rights geared to meet their unique needs
and conducive societal conditions needed for them to
flourish and to truly become co-equal participants in all
facets of life.”
49. When we create avenues for inclusion, we work towards improving
systems and institutions. In the context of healthcare, the inclusion
of persons with disabilities is a vital component of quality healthcare.
The guidelines and recommendations which express concern about
“lowering the standard of medical practice” on account of persons
with disabilities miss the fact that these standards may not be
adequate to begin with. The quality of a system is informed by its
2220 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

ability to empathise with and relate to the recipients. A system without
adequate number of practitioners who have lived experiences will
not be able to fully imagine the obstacles and grievances faced by
a diverse population. Diversity of workforce is crucial for a diverse
society, so that everyone may have a stake in the system and the
system can effectively discharge its duties toward everyone.
50. Section 2525 of the RPWD Act outlines the positive obligation of
Government and local authorities to provide healthcare to persons
with disabilities. An affirmative obligation is placed to ensure that
persons with disabilities receive a barrier free access to all public
and private healthcare institutions. Removal of barriers can only
be achieved if persons with disabilities feel comfortable while
accessing healthcare. The barriers faced by a person may be
physical, psychological and attitudinal. The inclusion of persons
with disabilities within medical practice is vital to ensure that the
approach of the medical community and of hospitals and other
healthcare institutes is humane, sensitive and informed by lived
experiences. It strengthens our fraternity. Therefore, the process
through which medical aspirants with disability enter the profession
must be compatible with constitutional and statutory entitlements
and guarantees.

25 “25. Healthcare.—(1) The appropriate Government and the local authorities shall take necessary
measures for the persons with disabilities to provide,—
(a) free healthcare in the vicinity specially in rural area subject to such family income as may be notified;
(b) barrier-free access in all parts of Government and private hospitals and other healthcare institutions
and centres;
(c) priority in attendance and treatment.
(2) The appropriate Government and the local authorities shall take measures and make schemes or
programmes to promote healthcare and prevent the occurrence of disabilities and for the said purpose
shall—
(a) undertake or cause to be undertaken surveys, investigations and research concerning the cause of
occurrence of disabilities;
(b) promote various methods for preventing disabilities;
(c) screen all the children at least once in a year for the purpose of identifying “at-risk” cases;
(d) provide facilities for training to the staff at the primary health centres;
(e) sponsor or cause to be sponsored awareness campaigns and disseminate or cause to be
disseminated information for general hygiene, health and sanitation;
(f) take measures for pre-natal, perinatal and post-natal care of mother and child;
(g) educate the public through the pre-schools, schools, primary health centres, village level workers
and anganwadi workers;
(h) create awareness amongst the masses through television, radio and other mass media on the
causes of disabilities and the preventive measures to be adopted;
(i) healthcare during the time of natural disasters and other situations of risk;
(j) essential medical facilities for life saving emergency treatment and procedures; and
(k) sexual and reproductive healthcare especially for women with disability.”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2221

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

51. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities in its concluding observations on the initial report of
India26 has inter alia identified the medical model of disability as a
prominent concern. It has stated as follows:
“(a) The prevalence of the medical model of disability in
legislation, public policies and attitudes concerning persons
with disabilities, particularly in the multiple assessments
and certification of disability and the requirement
for different assessments to access services in the
community, and in the misunderstanding of disability,
including leprosy, as solely a biological condition requiring
prevention and rehabilitation;”
(emphasis supplied)

52. The committee has recommended that the concern be remedied with
inter alia reforming guidelines assessing persons with disabilities
by adopting a human rights model. The recommendation has also
opined against the multiplicity of assessments which we have echoed
above. The recommendation states as follows:
“(b) Reform the guidelines for assessing and certifying
disability to bring them into line with the human rights
model of disability, ensuring that organizations of persons
with disabilities are involved in the reform, that multiple
assessments do not create an undue burden for
applicants, and that policies and programmes shift from
care, treatment and protection towards the removal of
environmental and attitudinal barriers, which prevent
equality and inclusion;”
(emphasis supplied)

53. We have noted above that Disability Assessment Boards must comply
with rule of law principles by injecting transparency, fairness and
consistency in their approach. The Boards must further elaborate on

26 UN. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (22nd sess). CRPD/C/IND/CO/1. Concluding
observations on the initial report of India : Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Geneva :
UN, 29 Oct. 2019.
2222 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the reasons for the outcome of their assessment, in particular when
they opine that the candidate is ineligible. The Disability Assessment
Boards must focus on the functional competence of persons with
disabilities and not merely quantify the disability. The quantification
of disability is a task in need of a purpose within the human rights
based model of disability. The functional competency approach to
assessment for a medical course is globally recognised. To enable
members of the Assessment Boards in effectively applying the
functional competency test, they must be adequately trained by
professionals and persons with disabilities or persons who have
worked on disability justice. These trainings must be with a view
to enhance the understanding of the Board members in assessing
persons with disabilities and must not pathologize or problematize
them.
54. The disability of a person is quantified at the time of availing a
Unique Disability ID Card.27 The quantification of disability is moot
at the point of admission to educational courses since the eligibility
for a person to benefit from reservation may be evaluated using the
quantification in the UDID Card. If a person with disability wants to
have themself re-assessed so as to verify whether their disability falls
within the prescribed parameters for reservation - they may choose
to do so by updating their UDID Cards. The role of the Disability
Assessment Boards must be tailored (with a functional competency
approach) only for the course which the candidate seeks to pursue.
55. Further, the journey of a person with disability to apply for the NEET
Examination and thereafter pursue medicine at the college must also
comply with accessibility norms. The application portal for NEET
Examination must outline the accessibility compliances of different
colleges to enable prospective students with disabilities in making
an informed decision. Once admitted, the Enabling Units established
under the directions of the University Grants Commission must act
as a point of contact for persons with disabilities to access clinical
accommodations. Students must be informed about the Enabling
Units and Equal Opportunity Cells through the information booklet
circulated for new MBBS students, the college website and the Equal

27 “UDID Card”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2223

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

Opportunity Policy under Section 21 of RPWD Act. The second
respondent must make appropriate directions in this regard.
56. In the UK, the General Medical Council, which regulates medical
education, has issued an advisory guidance titled Welcome and
valued. The guidance outlines how institutions can comply with their
duties to afford reasonable accommodation to disabled medical
students. The guidance inter alia lists the steps for supporting medical
students. After addressing student requirements and agreeing on a
support action plan, the guidance outlines the following steps, which
are indicative and may not be appropriate for all:
a. Forming a support group or a lead to deal with support
arrangements of incoming students with disabilities;
b. Identifying key persons of contact with students with disabilities
and for each of the services involved in exploring the support
arrangements;
c. Informing students on how their information will be used
in compliance with confidentiality. Colleges are further
recommended to:
i. Keep a clear audit trail of decision making for supporting
disabled learners as this is likely to help schools make sure
they have taken appropriate steps to provide reasonable
adjustments;
ii. Keep a record of all conversations between the support
group and student. Agree on the method of recording such
conversations and allow the student to see a draft record
of any discussions;
iii. Create a separate file with different access arrangements
for confidential information related to health outside of the
general student record.
d. The lead must thereafter organise a meeting between the student
and the support group. The group may also arrange meetings
to evaluate cases and discuss progress; and
e. Lastly, a decision may be made on whether the student with
disability can be provided adequate support to enable them in
meeting the outcomes desirable in a medical graduate.
2224 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

57. The provision of an audit trail to assess whether a given accommodation
required by a student with disability places an undue burden on the
institution is a vital safeguard for transparency and fairness. Dr
Satendra Singh in his report dated 20 October 2024 has made
suggestions to (i) rename the Disability Assessment Boards as
Ability Assessment Boards to align them better with their intended
purpose; (ii) include a doctor with disability or who is well conversant
with disability rights in such Boards; (iii) use a human rights
model of disability for assessment; (iv) issue guidance on clinical
accommodations; (v) train the Boards in carrying out the disability
competency assessment; and (vi) use the Enabling Units to serve as
a contact point for clinical accommodations. As far as the inclusion
of doctors with disabilities in the Disability Assessment Boards is
concerned - the first respondent has issued a circular on 24 March
2022 mandating such inclusion. This direction shall be complied
with by all Boards.
58. The second respondent has submitted that in light of the judgment
of this Court in Omkar Gond (supra), it will be constituting a new
committee of domain experts to comply with the directions in that
judgment. We note the assurance of the second respondent and
direct that this committee shall include persons with disability or one
or more experts who are well conversant with disability rights. The
committee shall recommend fresh guidelines to replace the existing
guidelines. The above suggestions shall be duly considered by the
government on its own merits. The recommendations so formulated
shall comply with this judgment.

F. Conclusions
59. Our conclusions in light of this case are formulated in the following
terms:
a. The impugned judgment of the Nagpur bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay is set aside and the report of the Disability
Assessment Board of AIIMS, Nagpur dated 13 August 2024 is
quashed for failing to apply the statutory and regulatory standards
applicable to the assessment of a person with disability;
b. A supernumerary seat shall be created at the AIIMS, Nagpur
and the seat shall be allocated to the appellant, provided that
he has not already secured a seat at a college of his choosing;
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2225

Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.

c. The college shall be given the report dated 20 October 2024
which makes suggestions as to the accommodations which
may be extended to the appellant to successfully pursue the
MBBS course;
d. The appellant shall be protected from victimisation;
e. The judgement shall apply in rem.
60. We further conclude as follows:
a. The second respondent shall issue fresh guidelines for admitting
persons with disabilities into medical courses. The committee
formulating the guidelines must include experts with disability or
persons who have worked on disability justice. The guidelines
shall comply with the judgments of this Court and contemporary
advancements in disability justice;
b. The Disability Assessment Boards shall eschew from a
benchmark model to test the functional competence of medical
aspirants with disability. The second respondent shall issue
appropriate guidelines in this regard;
a. The Disability Assessment Boards shall include a doctor or
health professional with disability as per the directions of the
first respondent dated 24 March 2022;
b. The conduct of the Disability Assessment Boards shall be fair,
transparent and in compliance with principles of the rule of law.
Attention must be paid to ensure that candidates appearing
before the Board do not feel uncomfortable on account of
physical or attitudinal barriers;
c. Reasonable accommodation is a gateway right to avail all
other fundamental, human and legal rights for persons with
disabilities. Non-availability of reasonable accommodation
amounts to discrimination and violates substantive equality of
persons with disabilities;
d. The inclusion of persons with disability in the medical profession
would enhance the quality of healthcare and meet the
preambular virtue of fraternity and the guarantees in Articles
21, 19, 14 and 15 of the Constitution;
e. Applicants to the NEET examination must be informed about the
compliance of accessibility norms and provisions of reasonable
2226 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

accommodation available at colleges. The respondents shall
issue appropriate directions to create a database with relevant
information on accessibility and reasonable accommodation; and
f. Enabling Units at medical colleges shall act as points of
contact for persons with disability desirous of accessing clinical
accommodations.
61. A copy of this Judgment will be transmitted to the Secretaries of all
concerned Ministries of the Government of India.
62. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
63. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey