Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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