Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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