Delhi High Court: In a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) filed to challenge Clause 8 under ‘Admission Terms and Conditions’ of the Indian Nursing Council (Revised) Regulations and Curriculum for B.Sc. (Nursing Program) Regulations, 2020, being discriminatory and violating the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016) as it reserves seats only for candidates with loco-motor disabilities of 40% to 50% of the lower extremity, thereby excluding candidates with other disabilities such as Muscular Dystrophy, Dwarfism, Acid Attack Victims, Low Vision, Hearing Impairment, Speech Disability, and Intellectual Disability., a Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ* and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. directed the present writ petition be treated as a representation to the Indian Nursing Council (‘INC’) (respondent no. 3) and decide the inclusion of other disabilities, as per the law, for reservation in nursing courses.
In the present matter, the petitioners sought the issuance of directions to respondents to formulate new nursing regulations to accommodate reservations for all persons with disabilities as identified by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘Act’), and to invite comments from the general public before notifying the amendment in the regulations so that an opportunity is provided to persons with disabilities to share their views.
The petitioner contended that Clause 8 envisaged reservation for disabled candidates with a disability of loco-motor to the tune of 40 percent to 50 percent of the lower extremity only. It was submitted that the impugned Clause excludes persons with disabilities having other disabilities such as muscular dystrophy, dwarfism, acid attack victims, low vision, hearing impairment, speech disability, intellectual disability, etc. and this leads to discrimination.
It was also contended by the petitioner that by restricting the eligibility criteria for pursuing B.Sc. (Nursing) and B.Sc. (Hons.) nursing courses, several candidates other than the candidates having loco-motor disability as mentioned above, are deprived of even applying for the nursing course.
The petitioner submitted that such a clause goes against the Act, and also affects the job prospectus of people with other kinds of disabilities since artificial fetters were being placed at the stage of admission itself.
Further, the petitioner pointed out that the National Testing Agency (‘NTA’) (respondent no. 4) had reduced the reservation for persons with disabilities from 5% to 3% which violated not only Section 32(1) of the Act but also Article 14 of the Constitution. To this, the NTA stated that the public notice was issued as per the guidelines of the INC.
Upon perusal of records, the Court found that the petitioner had made various representations to the INC which had never been responded to. Keeping this in view, the Court directed the present petition to be treated as a representation to the INC. Further, while disposing of the petition, the INC was directed to decide the same in accordance with the law within four weeks.
[Satendra Singh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4027, Decided on 28-05-2024]
Order by: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner — Advocate Mayank Sapra, Advocate Karuvaki Mohanty, Advocate Shrutika Pandey, Advocate Lalima Das
For Respondent — CGSC Monika Arora, Advocate Subhrodeep Saha, Advocate Priya Singh, Advocate Sanjay Khanna, Advocate Pragya Bhushan, Advocate Karandeep Singh, Advocate Tarandeep Singh
Buy Constitution of India HERE
