Anmol vs Union of India & Ors.

Held: In Omkar Ramchandra Gond case it was held that Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy casts duty on the State to make effective provision for securing the right to work and education for the persons with disabilities within the limits of its economic capacity and development – Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was enacted for furtherance of this duty – After signing United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2008 a more comprehensive RPwD Act was enacted in 2016 to further the principles enshrined in the Convention like respect for inherent dignity; individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices; non-discrimination; full and effective participation and inclusion in society; respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity; equality of opportunity and accessibility – Purposive interpretation of the RPwD Act has to be employed and therefore merely based on the quantification of the disability, a candidate will not forfeit his right to stake a claim for admission to the course of his or her choice – No classification can be overbroad – In Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 383 it was held that in the matters of providing relief to those who are differently abled, the approach and attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief oriented and not obstructive or lethargic. [Paras 15-16, 19] Graduate Medical Education Regulations (Amendment), 2019 issued by National Medical Commission (‘NMC’) – Need for revision – Based on Communication from Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 25.01.2024 pursuant to directions in Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 856 of 2023) – Discussed: Held: The Communication from Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment mandated the review of regulations by the NMC to work out functional classifications and physical requirements consistent with the requirements of medical profession like the one prepared by Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) w.r.t. civil servants. [Paras 17, 18, 22, 25, 45] Concept of ‘Reasonable Accommodation’ – Explained keeping in mind the ratio in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860:

Held: In Omkar Ramchandra Gond it was held that – Revised regulations and guidelines which the National Medical Commission will issue shall have an inclusive attitude towards persons with disabilities from all categories, furthering the concept of reasonable accommodation recognized in the RPwD Act – Section 2(y) RPwD Act defines ‘reasonable accommodation’ to mean 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 – Relied on Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 370, wherein it was held that, reasonable accommodation captures the positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society. [Paras 18-20]

Role of Disabilities Assessment Board (‘DAB’) – Explained in light of Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860:

Held: DAB is not monotonous automation to just look at the quantified benchmark disability as set out in the certificate of disability and cast aside the candidate – Such action will be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution – DABs are obliged to examine as to whether the disability will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question. [Paras 19, 22] Appendix H-1 to NMC Regulations, 2019 – How it violates the provisions of various laws:

Held: In the Appendix H-1 “both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion” are considered essential to be eligible for the medical course – It is completely antithetical to Article 41 of the Constitution; the principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the salutary provisions of the RPwD Act – It glorifies ‘ableism’ and propagates that persons with typical abilities and with faculties similar to what the majority may have or somehow superior – It has no sanctity in law as it does not admit of a functional assessment of the individual candidate, a matter which is so fundamental in protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. [Paras 16, 20-21, 25, 34-35]

Findings in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services & Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 3130 – Discussed, reiterated and summarised:

Held: In Om Rathod, arising out of similar facts, the same expert notwithstanding an adverse report filed by DAB, recommended admission of appellant therein to MBBS course after elaborately considering functional assessment and successful completion of it using clinical accommodations and assistive technologies – The decision of Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. Union of India (2019) 10 SCC

20 was distinguished – Om Rathod summarised as: 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 outcomes which persons with disabilities have when they interact with different kinds of societies and accommodations. (para 23)…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… For example, a functional competency model would require a candidate to effectively communicate with 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. (para 26) …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. (para 27) … 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. … Reasonable accommodation is a facet of substantive equality and its failure constitutes discrimination. (para 29)… 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. (para 36) …However, courts have the jurisdiction to ensure that the manner in which the Board proceeds and 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 (para 39). [Para 28]

Whether the appellant is eligible for admission to medical course – The separate Reports of the five member Committee and Dr. Satyendra Singh tested on the touchstone of ratios in Omkar Ramchandra Gond and Om Rathod:

Held: That the Appendix H-1 in the notification of 13.05.2019, issued by the Medical Council of India cannot be interpreted to mean that merely because on the quantification of the disability percentage exceeding the prescribed limits, a person automatically becomes ineligible for the medical course – That part of the Report of the 5 members Committee cannot be the basis to deny the appellant’s admission to the MBBS Course because: a) the report does not satisfy the test of functional assessment as contemplated in the said two judgments; b) as mandated in the said judgments reasons have not been assigned by the five members of the Board for denying the appellant his right to pursue the MBBS Course; c) the need to assess beyond the quantified disability and the need to opine whether the individual with a disability aided by modern scientific tools and devices can enter the MBBS program has not been fulfilled and also they have recorded statements in the nature of disclaimer w.r.t. review of NMC Guidelines – Report of Dr. Satyendra Singh complies with the requirements laid down in the said judgments – He has employed interactive processes to prepare the Report and put Appellant through procedures to test his dexterity and perform psychomotor skills in simulated environment – Based on these tests, certain clinical accommodations for each phase of the MBBS Course have been suggested which can be adopted by the authorities – His Report concludes that we should not assume Appellant’s incompetence without first providing him ample opportunities in a simulation lab and ensuring the availability of accommodations and assistive products – Courts are not experts in medical field but are duty bound to enforce the fundamental rights. [Paras 16, 29-33, 36-39, 42-44]

Review of NMC Guidelines – Directions given in Omkar and Om Rathod cases – Reiterated:

Held: NMC was directed to issue revised regulations and guidelines keeping in mind the principles laid down of the said judgments w.r.t admission of students with specified disabilities under the RPwD Act to the MBBS Course and the communication of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 25.01.2024 – NMC also directed to constitute a new committee of domain experts which will include persons with disability or one or more experts conversant with the disability rights – NMC shall file an affidavit explaining the current status before 03.03.2025. [Paras 45-46, 48]