Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India (2024)

Introduction 

This landmark judgment deals with disability assessment guidelines for medical education admissions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, challenging rigid percentage-based exclusions. 

• This judgment was delivered by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan. 

Facts 

• Omkar Ramchandra Gond from Latur, Maharashtra, scored 97.2% in tenth standard and aspired to become a doctor.  
• He has speech and language disability diagnosed with Hypernasality with Misarticulation due to repaired bilateral cleft palate, certified as 44-45% permanent disability. 
• The appellant applied for NEET (UG) 2024 under the Persons with Disability (PwD) and OBC categories and qualified the entrance examination, securing rank 42091 in the provisional merit list. 
• Despite qualifying NEET, the Designated Disability Certification Centre at Sir JJ Group of Hospitals declared him ineligible for medical course as per NMC guidelines.  
• The NMC's Graduate Medical Education Regulations (amended 13.05.2019) in Appendix "H-1" specified that persons with ≥40% speech and language disability were not eligible for medical courses. 
• The Bombay High Court failed to grant interim relief.  
• The Supreme Court then directed that a seat be kept vacant and ordered a Medical Board examination at Maulana Azad Medical College, which concluded that his disability would not hinder MBBS pursuit. 

Issues 

• Whether a candidate with benchmark disability exceeding prescribed percentage thresholds should be automatically disqualified from medical education without individual assessment of functional capability? 
• Whether the NMC guidelines creating absolute bars based solely on quantified disability percentages violate constitutional principles of equality and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016? 

Court’s Observations 

• Constitutional Framework: The Court emphasized Article 41 of the Directive Principles, which mandates the State to secure the right to education for persons with disabilities within economic capacity limits. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 implements UN Convention principles including non-discrimination, full participation, equality of opportunity, and reasonable accommodation. 
• Critique of "One Size Fits All" Approach: The Court rejected rigid disability percentage thresholds, noting they create over-inclusive classifications that treat unequal's equally, violating Article 14. The Court found that among persons with 40%+ disability in speech and language categories, there are individuals like the appellant whose disability may not hinder pursuing medical education. 
• Referenced previous judgments in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (2023) and Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai (2023) that criticized blanket disability assessments, emphasizing that disability is individualistic and cannot follow a "one-size-fits-all" approach. 
• Reasonable Accommodation Principle: The Court extensively interpreted Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act, emphasizing that reasonable accommodation requires individualized assessment rather than blanket exclusions. It should encompass purposive construction of NMC regulations to further RPwD Act objectives. 
• Government Initiative: The Court commended the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment's communication dated 25.01.2024 directing NMC to incorporate assistive technology considerations, create functional classification systems, review regulations for RPwD Act compliance, and establish appellate mechanisms.
• Key Holdings: 
  • Quantified disability percentages alone cannot disqualify candidates from medical courses - functional capability must be individually assessed. 
  • Disability Assessment Boards must conduct individualized functional assessments and positively record whether disability will hinder course pursuit. 
  • Boards must provide reasoned decisions when concluding a candidate is ineligible. 
  • Pending NMC regulation reforms, current guidelines must be read liberally in light of RPwD Act objectives. 
  • Negative Assessment Board decisions are subject to judicial review with courts empowered to refer cases to premier medical institutes for independent opinions.
• Specific Directions: 
  • Confirmed appellant's admission as valid in law. 
  • Set aside Bombay High Court's order dated 29th August 2024. 
  • Disposed of related writ petition in terms of this judgment. 
  • No order as to costs. 

Conclusion 

This judgment establishes that functional capability rather than rigid disability percentages should determine eligibility for professional education. It mandates individualized assessment over mechanical application of thresholds, emphasizing that the approach should focus on accommodation and opportunity rather than disqualification. 

The Court reinforced constitutional principles of equality under Article 14 and educational rights under Article 41, aligning with the transformative vision of inclusive education under the RPwD Act. This represents a paradigm shift ensuring persons with disabilities can pursue career aspirations based on actual capability rather than arbitrary percentage barriers.