Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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