Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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