Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

Supreme Court Challenges Rigid Disability Criteria for NEET: Orders Fresh Evaluation for MBBS Aspirant

05 September 2024 12:08 PM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court of India has intervened in a NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) admission case, where a candidate was disqualified due to a speech and language disability exceeding the 40% threshold stipulated by current regulations. The Court, led by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, has ordered a re-evaluation of the candidate by an independent Medical Board to determine if the disability impairs the candidate’s ability to pursue an MBBS degree.

The petitioner, Omkar, was denied admission to the MBBS program based on a medical certificate indicating a 44% speech and language disability. Under the existing regulations, candidates with over 40% such disability are considered ineligible for admission to medical courses. Omkar challenged this decision, seeking a judicial review on the grounds that the blanket application of the disability percentage could unjustly disqualify capable candidates.

The Supreme Court critically examined the applicability of the 40% disability criterion in educational admissions. It noted that a previous case, involving a candidate with 55% speech and language impairment, had resulted in the appointment of an independent Medical Board to assess the candidate's suitability for pursuing an MBBS degree. Drawing parallels, the Court emphasized that a similar approach should be applied in Omkar's case.

The Court directed the Dean of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College (BJGMC), Pune, to constitute a Medical Board comprising specialists in speech and language impairments. The Board is tasked with determining whether Omkar’s disability would hinder his ability to complete the MBBS course. Notably, the Court instructed the Medical Board to conduct this assessment without being influenced by the regulation that disqualifies candidates with disabilities above 40%.

The bench stated, "The petitioner's ineligibility was determined solely on the percentage of disability, which may not fully reflect his capability to undertake medical education. A thorough and specialized evaluation is necessary to ensure that no deserving candidate is deprived of the opportunity based on a rigid interpretation of disability norms."

This Supreme Court order highlights a crucial examination of the rigid application of disability regulations in educational admissions. By mandating a specialized medical assessment, the Court aims to ensure that candidates like Omkar are given a fair chance to pursue their aspirations in the medical field. The outcome of this re-evaluation could potentially influence the future of disability criteria in professional course admissions.

Date of Decision: September 2, 2024

Omkar vs. The Union of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News