Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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.

Similar News