Site icon SCC Times

‘Powers under Art. 226 are not expansive enough to allow creation or modification of eligibility criteria for pursuing medicine’; Delhi HC refuses relief to a disabled person

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by a person with a locomotor disability to seek justice and an opportunity to pursue the career that he had worked so hard for, a Single Judge Bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., being bound by law, was unable to grant him any relief because the report submitted by the Medical Board at AIIMS stated that the petitioner’s disability made him ineligible to pursue MBBS.

Background

The petitioner was a brilliant and determined student who did not let his physical limitations define him and achieved academic excellence. He achieved 91.5 percent in Class X and 90 percent in Class XII.

The petitioner stated that since childhood, he had nurtured the dream of becoming a doctor, driven by his deep belief that the medical profession is a noble path to serve society and to pursue the same, he decided to appear for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate), 2024 [NEET (UG), 2024] as an SC-PwD category candidate.

The petitioner’s disability percentage was recorded at 42 percent as per his Disability Certificate dated 09-12-2023, a benchmark disability as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘RPwD Act’).

The National Testing Agency (‘NTA’) conducted NEET UG, 2024 on 05-05-2024 and the results were announced on 04-06-2024. Following an order from the Supreme Court, a revised score card was issued on 26-07-2024 wherein the petitioner had secured 542 out of 720 marks which placed him at PwD category rank 176.

After successfully clearing the cut-off, the petitioner became eligible for the next stage in the admission process, which required the issuance of a Certificate of Disability from a designated Disability Certification Centre. On 16-08-2024, the petitioner approached Vardhman Mahavir Medical College — Safdarjung Hospital (‘VMMC-SJ’), a recognized Disability Certification Centre in New Delhi.

Despite the VMMC-SJ Hospital quantifying the petitioner’s disability at 68 percent in its NEET Disability Certificate dated 19-08-2024 i.e. within the permissible disability range of 40 percent to 80 percent, the VMMC-SJ Hospital concluded that the petitioner was not eligible to pursue medical courses.

The petitioner contended that the Medical Board at VMMC-SJ Hospital had decided to disqualify the petitioner without a thorough in-person examination or a reasoned evaluation of his abilities. It was contended that the Board had simply based its conclusion on the fact that both his upper and lower limbs were affected and had ignored his functional abilities as well as his success in the NEET exam.

The petitioner submitted that the report only took note of the disability without addressing how it might affect his functional capacity to study and practice medicine. It was also contended that a Competency-Based Medical Education (‘CBME’) framework focuses on the necessary competencies rather than any physical disability.

On the last date of hearing, the Court had directed the formation of a Medical Board at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (‘AIIMS’), New Delhi to assess the nature and extent of the petitioner’s functional disability and to determine whether his condition meets the requirements necessary for being eligible to pursue MBBS.

Analysis and Decision

The Medical Board submitted its report to the Court wherein it was concluded that the petitioner’s disability made him ineligible to pursue MBBS. To this, the Court opined that the evaluation of the petitioner’s ability to pursue the course and later, practice as a doctor had to be entrusted to the experts in the medical field.

The Court said that since four experts had given their opinion, the Court could not review or overturn the findings of the Medical Board.

The Court said that it was conscious of the fact that the powers vested to it under Article 226 of the Constitution were not expansive enough to allow the Court to create or modify eligibility criteria for pursuing medical education.

The Court stated that it did not want the petitioner to feel disheartened by the outcome of this petition since the Court was bound by law. It was also noted that the petitioner’s journey and achievements had already proved that he possessed immense potential and that there may be some other avenues of medical education where he could utilize his talent.

The Court referred to Neha Pudil v. Union of India1 wherein similar circumstances were being dealt with and the respondents had been directed to explore options for candidates such as the petitioner in the present matter to be able to pursue some of the disciplines of medical education.

The National Medical Council informed the Court that a fresh policy regarding the above-mentioned directions had already been framed and would be applicable from the next academic year. The Court stated that if the petitioner’s disability is not a hindrance under the new policy, he would have an opportunity in the next academic session.

Further, the Court observed that the petitioner’s journey represented the hopes and dreams of countless individuals who strive to overcome the odds stacked against them due to their inabilities.

However, it was said that even though the journey of the petitioner was commendable, the Court was bound to respect the medical assessments made by experts and the existing statutory framework and guidelines.

While dismissing the present petition, the Court said that it was unable to grant any relief since it was bound by the law. However, while parting, the Court said that even if the petitioner’s functional disability held him back this year, his academic record which reflected his hard work would find him some other stream that may fulfill his dreams of achievement and service to the society.

[Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6368, Decided on 10-09-2024]


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For Petitioner — Advocate Rahul Bajaj, Advocate Taha Bin Tasneem, Advocate Amar Jain

For Respondents — Advocate T. Singhdev, Advocate Abhijit Chakravarty, Advocate Anum Hussain, Advocate Jaswinder Singh


1. W.P.(C) 2815/2022

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Exit mobile version