Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 Case

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