Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Supreme Court Ruling Emphasizes Need for Detailed Disability Assessments in Admissions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant order, the Supreme Court of India, led by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR, upheld the claims of petitioners with disabilities, stressing the importance of thorough disability assessments in admissions to educational institutions.

The case, titled Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India & Ors., revolved around the evaluation of disability claims by a Medical Board and the subsequent admission of disabled students to medical courses. The Court's observations and directives from the judgment have drawn attention:

  1. Upholding Disability Claims: The Court, after reviewing reports issued by the Medical Board, upheld the petitioners' claims as persons with disabilities, stating, "No further clarification is necessary having regard to the range indicated by the Expert Board or Committee."
  2. Admission with Accommodations: The Supreme Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioners as persons with disabilities and consider their applications for admission, while also ensuring compliance with other admission parameters.
  3. Detailed Evaluation Required: The judgment highlighted the need for detailed evaluation and reasoning in disability assessments. The reports issued by the Medical Board lacked sufficient reasoning, and the Court directed the provision of a clarificatory note with elaborate reasoning based on the evaluation conducted.
  4. Consideration of Recent Developments: The Court emphasized that the evaluation should take into account recent developments in medical sciences and consider the potential aids that may assist disabled students in effectively participating in their chosen courses.
  5. Earmarking of Seats: The judgment directed the earmarking of seats for disabled candidates in the counseling process. It also stressed the importance of allocating these seats based on principles prescribed by law and conforming with merit.
  6. Benchmark Disability Criteria: The Court raised concerns about the benchmark disability criteria under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It noted that the 40% threshold might result in excluding eligible candidates and directed the Union to consider steps to mitigate such anomalies.

The case will be listed for further proceedings on October 3, 2023.

This ruling underscores the significance of thorough and reasoned disability assessments, ensuring equal opportunities for disabled individuals in education and other fields. It also highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to disability criteria to avoid unintended exclusions.

"The Union shall consider steps to mitigate such anomalies, because a lower extent of disabilities bar benefits and at the same time render them functional, whereas higher extent of disability would entitle benefits, but also result in denying them the benefit of reservation."

The decision sets a precedent for fair and inclusive admissions processes in educational institutions across India, reflecting the commitment to uphold the rights of persons with disabilities.

Date of Decision: 22-09-2023

BAMBHANIYA SAGAR VASHARAMBHAI  vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.         

                   

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.comwp-content/uploads/2023/10/Bambhaniya_Sagar_Vasharambhai_vs_Union_Of_India_on_22_September_2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News