Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

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