Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 623
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No (s). 29275 of 2024)
KABIR PAHARIA ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.05.05
14:50:37 IST
Reason:
1
3. The appellant being a person with benchmark
disabilities (for short ‘PwBD’) belongs to the reserved
category of Scheduled Caste and aspires for admission
to the MBBS UG (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of
Surgery) course. Having been denied admission to the
MBBS course, despite standing high in merit in his
category i.e., Scheduled Castes-PwBD quota, the
appellant approached the High Court of Delhi at New
1
Delhi by filing a Writ Petition (C) No. 12165 of 2024,
th
which came to be rejected vide order dated 10
September, 2024. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 967 of
2024, preferred by the appellant, also stands rejected
by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order
th
dated 12 November, 2024, which is assailed in this
appeal by special leave.
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court.’
2
4. The facts in brief, essential for disposal of the
present matter, can be gathered from the detailed order
nd
dated 2 April, 2025 passed by this Court, which is
reproduced hereinbelow: -
“ 2. The petitioner passed Secondary School
th
Examination/Class X in 2022 with 91.5% marks
th
and class XII exams with 90% marks. He appeared
for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (for
short “NEET”) UG 2024 Examinations in the category
of SC/PwBD candidate. The deformities suffered by
the petitioner in his body are as below:-
“congenital absence of multiple fingers in
both hands as well as involvement of left
nd rd
foot (2 and 3 toe), the extent whereof has
been assessed at 42%.”
3. Despite the structural disadvantages referred to
above, the petitioner performed exceedingly well in
the examination scoring 542 marks and secured a
category rank of 176. It may be stated that the cut-
off marks for these subcategories were 143-127.
Having made the cut-off for the SC/PwBD category
with flying colours, the petitioner staked his rightful
claim for the next stage which requires the issuance
of a Certificate of Disability for NEET Admissions
(“NEET Disability Certificate”) by a designated
‘Disability Certification Centre’. Accordingly, the
petitioner approached the Vardhman Mahavir
Medical College-Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi (for
short “VMMC-SJ Hospital”) for medical assessment.
Even though, the VMMC-SJ Hospital assessed the
petitioner’s disability at 68%, it concluded that under
3
the NMC/MCI guidelines, the petitioner was not
entitled to pursue the medical courses. The
conclusions drawn by the certifying body in the
th
certificate dated 19 August, 2024, are reproduced
below for ready reference:-
“Conclusion: Based on quantification of
disability The candidate is not eligible to
pursue medical courses (as per NMC
norms).
Remark: BILATERAL UPEER (sic) LIMB
INVOLVEMENT
The Disability Certification Board certifies
that the candidate is not eligible for
admission in Medical/Dental courses and
to avail 5% PwD reservation as per the
NMC/MCI Gazette Notification.”
4. Aggrieved by his disqualification from admission
in the MBBS course on the ground of benchmark
disabilities, despite standing high in merit, the
petitioner approached the High Court of Delhi by
filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12165 of 2024.
5. The learned Single Bench of the High Court
directed the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences,
New Delhi to constitute a Board of three experts to
reassess the petitioner’s disabilities and to give an
opinion as to whether the petitioner would be able to
pursue medical courses and perform as a Doctor. In
compliance, the petitioner was subjected to
reassessment by the Medical Board constituted at
AIIMS, New Delhi and the report was submitted to the
learned Single Judge, who upon perusal thereof,
concluded that the petitioner was ineligible to pursue
4
medical courses. Accordingly, the writ petition was
th
dismissed vide order dated 10 September, 2024.
6. The petitioner assailed the decision of the
learned Single Judge by filing Letters Patent Appeal
No. 967 of 2024. The Division Bench of the High Court
th
of Delhi passed an order dated 27 September, 2024,
and directed a fresh evaluation of the petitioner’s
disabilities by a newly constituted medical Board. The
three-member medical Board constituted at the
AIIMS reiterated the conclusions of the earlier Medical
Board and again declared the petitioner ineligible to
pursue the medical courses as per the prevailing NMC
norms. Upon receiving the report, the learned
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide impugned
th
judgment dated 12 November, 2024, endorsed the
view of the board and dismissed the Letters Patent
Appeal preferred by the petitioner. The said judgment
is subject matter of challenge in this petition.
7. Mr. Rahul Bajaj, learned counsel representing
the petitioner, contended that the impugned
judgment and the decisions of both the medical
Boards are inherently flawed inasmuch as neither the
medical authorities nor the High Court duly adverted
to the crucial concepts of assistive devices and
reasonable accommodation to which the petitioner is
entitled, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 (for short ‘Act of 2016’). The vital factors,
i.e., the academic excellence of the petitioner, his
performance in the NEET examination, the high
placement in merit, were totally glossed over while
denying relief to the petitioner. Shri Bajaj relied upon
the judgments of this Court in Om Rathod v.
Director General of Health Sciences, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 4283 and Anmol v. Union of India &
Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387 , to urge that the
salutary principles provided under Article 41 of the
5
Constitution of India read with the Act of 2016 clearly
entitle the petitioner to seek medical education as
both these judgments expressly recognize the
concepts of assistive devices and reasonable
accommodation. By availing these moderations as
provided under the decisions of this Court, the
petitioner would be well equipped to perform his
duties as a Doctor.
8. Learned counsel submitted that in the case of
Om Rathod (supra) , despite the fact that the
candidate was not having both hands, he was held
entitled to undergo the MBBS course pursuant to an
assessment made by Dr. Satendra Singh, a specialist
in the field.
9. Learned counsel submitted that Dr. Satendra
Singh, while undertaking the functional assessment
of the candidate Shri Om Rathod posed four
questions for assessing his ability to undergo MBBS
course and concluded that all the questions had to be
answered in negative. The relevant excerpt from Om
Rathod’s judgment is quoted below: -
“11. Dr Satendra Singh submitted his
report on 20 October 2024. This Court duly
furnished the report to the second
respondent, National Medical Council, on
21 October 2024 to enable them to
formulate their response. The report by Dr
Satendra Singh outlined the functional
disability of the appellant to be an inability
to stand independently which may prove
limiting in clinical rotations in surgical
settings. The report suggested solutions to
enable the appellant in such cases. The
report further suggested clinical
6
accommodations for the appellant to reduce
the barriers he may encounter. The report
determined the accommodations necessary
for the appellant to be reasonable and in
compliance with existing norms. The report
formulated four questions and answered
them as follows:
“a) Would the proposed accommodation
result in a failure to meet the NMC CBME's
inherent requirements? Not in my opinion
b) Would the accommodation legitimately
jeopardize patient safety? Not in my opinion
c) Would the proposed accommodation
result in the improper waiver of a core
requirement of the CBME? Not in my
opinion
d) Would the proposed accommodation pose
an undue hardship on the medical college
(budgets wise)? Not in my opinion ”
10. In his report, Dr. Satendra Singh quoted that the
father of Neurosurgery Harvey Cushing emphasized
way back in 1912 that motor skills are often the least
important part of the work.
11. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner in
the case of Anmol (supra) was suffering from
locomotor disability assessed at 50% with club foot
right lower limb and Phocomelia (a congenital defect
which causes severe limb shortening or loss of long
bones), in left middle ring finger through middle
phalanx with right middle index finger through
middle phalanx. The candidate also suffered from
speech and language disability assessed at 20%.
7
12. Mr. Bajaj contended that the petitioner herein is
having much better physical/locomotor attributes
and is well equipped as compared to the two
candidates in the cases of Anmol (supra) and Om
Rathod (supra). He also scored much higher marks
than these candidates in NEET (UG) examination
2024-2025. Anmol had obtained rank 2462 in the
PwD category, whereas the petitioner herein secured
176 rank and thus, he is much better placed than the
candidates in the above-referred cases.
13. He submitted that the assessment made by the
medical Board of the petitioner’s capability to take the
medical degree course and his disqualification on the
anvil of NMC norms is illegal and unsustainable in
view of the law laid down by this Court in the
judgments referred to supra .
14. He, therefore, urged that a direction deserves to
be issued to have a reassessment done of the
petitioner through Dr. Satyendra Singh on the ratio of
the above referred judgments and to mandate the
respondents to grant admission and accommodate
the petitioner in the MBBS (UG) Course 2024-2025.
th
15. Relying upon the order dated 17 April, 2023,
passed in the case of Vibhushita Sharma v. Union
of India , Writ Petition (Civil) No.793 of 2022, learned
counsel submitted that in case, this Court is not
inclined to grant admission to the petitioner in the
2024-2025 MBBS Degree course, a suitable direction
deserves to be issued to the respondents to admit the
petitioner in the academic session 2025-2026 treating
him to be NEET (UG) qualified.
16. Per contra , learned counsel representing the
Union of India and National Medical Commission
urged that the Commission is under the process of
8
revising its guidelines in compliance with the
judgments in the cases of Om Rathod (supra) and
Anmol (supra) . Three meetings have already taken
place, and the process is expected to be finalised
before counselling for the next academic session
commences. They thus, urged that the petitioner will
not be prejudiced, if the consideration of this matter
is deferred till the new guidelines are put in place.
17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the material placed on record.
18. Prima facie, we find substance in the submission
of the learned counsel representing the respondents
that the process for revising the guidelines in terms of
this Court’s decisions (supra) is underway and a final
outcome is expected before the counselling session for
MBBS (UG) 2025-2026 commences. However, we are
not inclined to defer the proceedings at this stage.
19. Denying relief to the petitioner on this premise
would be totally unjustified in view of the ratio of this
Court’s judgments in Om Rathod (supra) and Anmol
( supra) . Merely because the NMC is under the process
of revising the guidelines, the petitioner’s fate cannot
be allowed to hang in a limbo in spite of the fact that
he has performed exceedingly well in the NEET (UG)
2024 examination and stood high in the merit in his
category.
20. In view of the above, we hereby direct that a fresh
Medical Board shall be constituted at the All-India
Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi comprising
of five Doctors/specialists. One of the Board members
shall be a specialist in locomotor disabilities and one
member shall be a Neuro-Physician.
9
21. The petitioner shall be intimated a suitable date
for assessment by the Board within the next seven
days. He shall appear before the Board on the
appointed date whereupon the Board shall undertake
a fresh assessment of the petitioner’s disabilities with
due deference to the ratio of this Court’s judgments
in Om Rathod (supra) and Anmol (supra) . The
Board’s report shall be forwarded to this Court in a
th
sealed cover on or before 15 April, 2025. ”
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the appellant
was subjected to extensive review assessment by a
Medical Board constituted at the All-India Institute of
Medical Sciences, New Delhi (for short ‘AIIMS, New
th
Delhi’). The report dated 24 April, 2025 has been
forwarded by the Medical Board, which is reproduced
hereinbelow for the sake of convenience: -
“Subject: Report of the medical board constituted at
AIIMS for medical examination of petitioner Sh. Kabir
Paharia in compliance of order dated 02.04.2025,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi (Section-
XIV)vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29275 of
2024 titled Kabir Paharia Versus National Medical
Commission & Others.
*
10
With reference to the aforementioned subject,
the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, New Delhi
constituted a Medical Board consisting of the
following members:-
1. Dr. S.L. Yadav - Chairperson
Professor, Deptt. of P.M.R.
2. Dr. Suman Jain - Member
Professor, Deptt. of Physiology
3. Dr. Divya M.R. - Member
Assoc. Professor, Deptt. of Neurology
4. Dr. Arun Kumar Choudhary - Member
Asstt. Professor, Deptt. of PMR
5. Dr. Sahil Batra - Member
Asstt. Professor, Deptt. of Orthopaedics
6. Dr. Veeranna B. - Member Secy.
Department of Hospital Administration
The meeting of the Medical Board was held on
16.04.2024 (Wednesday) at 11:00 A.M. in the
Seminar Room, Room No. 01, Ground floor, PMR
OPD, Department of PMR, AIIMS, New Delhi. The
available reports, earlier disability certificates and
medical documents were reviewed. The petitioner Sh.
Kabir Paharia was present and was examined by the
members of the Medical Board. The second board
nd
meeting was held on 22 April 2025 at 11:00 AM in
the SET facility convergence block, AIIMS, New Delhi.
Mr. Kabir Paharia underwent a comprehensive
neurological examination as part of the Medical Board
assessment. It was observed that Mr. Kabir has a
11
significant absence of multiple digits in both hands
(specifically, the index and middle fingers on the right
hand, and the index, middle, and ring fingers on the
left hand) as well as in the left foot (notably, the
second and third toes), which is attributed to a birth
complication as documented in the available medical
records. His condition is deemed non-progressive,
and the locomotor disability is classified as
permanent. The neurological examination showed
normal strength in the existing limbs and digits, with
intact sensations and good coordination of the
existing limbs and digits.
He was asked to demonstrate various skilled
techniques in the simulation laboratory, including
chest compressions, intravenous cannulation,
assembly of a laryngoscope, intubation, and suturing,
all of which he executed satisfactorily. He
demonstrated functional adaptation using his
existing digits during these tasks. However, the board
observed that he faced minor challenges while
attempting to put on the sterilized standard gloves.
He had slight coordination problems and delays
caused by the lack of fingers and empty finger slots in
the gloves. An evaluation by an occupational
therapist validated his independence in activities of
daily living (ADLs).”
6. A careful perusal of the above report makes it
amply clear that the appellant successfully
demonstrated skilled techniques in the simulation
laboratory including chest compressions, intravenous
12
cannulation, assembly of a laryngoscope, intubation
and suturing. The Medical Board, in its report,
observed that the appellant demonstrated the
functional adaptation using his existing digits during
these tasks. The only minor challenge, which the
appellant faced during the entire procedure, was
putting on the sterilized standard gloves.
7. We feel that the mindset must change and this
trivial aberration, by no stretch of imagination, can be
a ground to deny admission to the appellant in the
MBBS UG course, when he is otherwise qualified and
scored exceeding high rank in the NEET-UG 2024.
8. As per the result of NEET-UG 2024, the appellant
secured an All-India Rank of 147946. His Scheduled
Caste category rank was 7252, and his PwBD category
rank was 176. The appellant has also submitted details
13
of the provisional NEET-UG 2024 counselling seat
allotment (Round 1), according to which a candidate
with Roll No. 14491, who ranked 159816, was allocated
a seat at AIIMS, New Delhi under the Scheduled Castes
PwBD category. Apparently thus, a candidate who stood
much below the appellant in merit has been admitted
against the reserved seat at the AIIMS, New Delhi to
which the appellant had a valid claim.
9. Manifestly, in view of the observations made by us
nd
in the order dated 2 April, 2025 and the consequent
successful assessment of the appellant by the Medical
th
Board, AIIMS, New Delhi vide report dated 24 April,
2025, the denial of admission to the appellant in the
MBBS UG course was grossly illegal, arbitrary and
violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights as
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
14
of India. Such action not only reflects institutional bias
and systemic discrimination but also undermines the
principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination
enshrined in our constitutional framework. The
constitutional mandate of substantive equality
demands that person with disabilities (for short ‘PwD’)
and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations
rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based
on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities.
10. On the previous date of hearing, we had sought a
response from the learned counsel representing the
respondents regarding the appellant's submission that
the candidate who secured a rank lower than the
appellant had been granted admission against the
Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the MBBS UG course
at AIIMS, New Delhi, for the academic year 2024–2025.
15
11. Today, during the course of hearing, Ms. Archana
Pathak Dave, learned ASG, on instructions, fairly
affirms this assertion of the appellant. She further
states that as the appellant has been successfully
assessed by the Medical Board constituted at AIIMS,
New Delhi, he can be afforded admission in MBBS UG
course against the Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the
AIIMS, New Delhi in the forthcoming counselling
session of 2025-2026.
12. Taking consideration of the fact that the 2024-
2025 academic session must have progressed
significantly and thus it would not be expedient to grant
admission to the appellant in the said session. We
accordingly direct that the appellant shall be allocated
a seat in the MBBS UG course 2025 against the
Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the All-India Institute
16
of Medical Science, New Delhi, in the forthcoming
academic session.
13. In backdrop of the factual matrix narrated supra
and the comparative higher merit secured by the
appellant in the NEET-UG 2024 examination, we make
it clear that the appellant shall not be required to
undergo the NEET-UG 2025 examination.
14. We further direct that the National Medical
Commission shall forthwith and not later than within a
period of two months from today and at any cost before
the counselling for the 2025-2026 session commence,
complete the process of revising the guidelines in light
of judgments of this Court in Om Rathod v. Director
2
General of Health Sciences and Anmol v. Union of
3
India & Ors. so that no deserving candidate in the
2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 4283.
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 387.
17
PwBD category is denied admission into the MBBS
course in spite of his/her/their entitlement. It must be
ensured that systemic discrimination against persons
with benchmark disabilities, whether direct or indirect,
is eliminated and that the admission process upholds
their right to equal opportunity and dignity.
15. The constitutional promise of equality is not
merely formal but substantive, requiring the State to
take affirmative measures to ensure that PwD and
PwBD can meaningfully participate in all spheres of life,
including professional education. We emphasize that
reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity
but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16,
and 21 of our Constitution. When administrative
authorities create arbitrary barriers that exclude
qualified PwBD candidates, they not only violate
18
statutory provisions but also perpetuate the historical
injustice and stigmatisation. The fundamental rights
and the dignity of PwD and PwBD candidates must be
protected by ensuring that assessment of their
capabilities is individualised, evidence-based, and free
from stereotypical assumptions that have no scientific
foundation.
16. Before parting, we express our wholehearted
appreciation for Mr. Rahul Bajaj and Mr. Amar Jain,
learned counsel, both persons with benchmark
disability (zero vision), for the excellent assistance
provided by them during the course of hearing of the
present matter. We also express our sincere
appreciation to Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior
counsel, for his pro bono services and Ms. Archana
19
Pathak Dave, learned ASG, for her pragmatic approach
in the matter.
th
17. The impugned order dated 12 November, 2024,
passed by the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 967 of 2024 is set aside.
18. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in
these terms. No order as to costs.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 02, 2025.
20
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No (s). 29275 of 2024)
KABIR PAHARIA ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.05.05
14:50:37 IST
Reason:
1
3. The appellant being a person with benchmark
disabilities (for short ‘PwBD’) belongs to the reserved
category of Scheduled Caste and aspires for admission
to the MBBS UG (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of
Surgery) course. Having been denied admission to the
MBBS course, despite standing high in merit in his
category i.e., Scheduled Castes-PwBD quota, the
appellant approached the High Court of Delhi at New
1
Delhi by filing a Writ Petition (C) No. 12165 of 2024,
th
which came to be rejected vide order dated 10
September, 2024. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 967 of
2024, preferred by the appellant, also stands rejected
by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order
th
dated 12 November, 2024, which is assailed in this
appeal by special leave.
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court.’
2
4. The facts in brief, essential for disposal of the
present matter, can be gathered from the detailed order
nd
dated 2 April, 2025 passed by this Court, which is
reproduced hereinbelow: -
“ 2. The petitioner passed Secondary School
th
Examination/Class X in 2022 with 91.5% marks
th
and class XII exams with 90% marks. He appeared
for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (for
short “NEET”) UG 2024 Examinations in the category
of SC/PwBD candidate. The deformities suffered by
the petitioner in his body are as below:-
“congenital absence of multiple fingers in
both hands as well as involvement of left
nd rd
foot (2 and 3 toe), the extent whereof has
been assessed at 42%.”
3. Despite the structural disadvantages referred to
above, the petitioner performed exceedingly well in
the examination scoring 542 marks and secured a
category rank of 176. It may be stated that the cut-
off marks for these subcategories were 143-127.
Having made the cut-off for the SC/PwBD category
with flying colours, the petitioner staked his rightful
claim for the next stage which requires the issuance
of a Certificate of Disability for NEET Admissions
(“NEET Disability Certificate”) by a designated
‘Disability Certification Centre’. Accordingly, the
petitioner approached the Vardhman Mahavir
Medical College-Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi (for
short “VMMC-SJ Hospital”) for medical assessment.
Even though, the VMMC-SJ Hospital assessed the
petitioner’s disability at 68%, it concluded that under
3
the NMC/MCI guidelines, the petitioner was not
entitled to pursue the medical courses. The
conclusions drawn by the certifying body in the
th
certificate dated 19 August, 2024, are reproduced
below for ready reference:-
“Conclusion: Based on quantification of
disability The candidate is not eligible to
pursue medical courses (as per NMC
norms).
Remark: BILATERAL UPEER (sic) LIMB
INVOLVEMENT
The Disability Certification Board certifies
that the candidate is not eligible for
admission in Medical/Dental courses and
to avail 5% PwD reservation as per the
NMC/MCI Gazette Notification.”
4. Aggrieved by his disqualification from admission
in the MBBS course on the ground of benchmark
disabilities, despite standing high in merit, the
petitioner approached the High Court of Delhi by
filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12165 of 2024.
5. The learned Single Bench of the High Court
directed the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences,
New Delhi to constitute a Board of three experts to
reassess the petitioner’s disabilities and to give an
opinion as to whether the petitioner would be able to
pursue medical courses and perform as a Doctor. In
compliance, the petitioner was subjected to
reassessment by the Medical Board constituted at
AIIMS, New Delhi and the report was submitted to the
learned Single Judge, who upon perusal thereof,
concluded that the petitioner was ineligible to pursue
4
medical courses. Accordingly, the writ petition was
th
dismissed vide order dated 10 September, 2024.
6. The petitioner assailed the decision of the
learned Single Judge by filing Letters Patent Appeal
No. 967 of 2024. The Division Bench of the High Court
th
of Delhi passed an order dated 27 September, 2024,
and directed a fresh evaluation of the petitioner’s
disabilities by a newly constituted medical Board. The
three-member medical Board constituted at the
AIIMS reiterated the conclusions of the earlier Medical
Board and again declared the petitioner ineligible to
pursue the medical courses as per the prevailing NMC
norms. Upon receiving the report, the learned
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide impugned
th
judgment dated 12 November, 2024, endorsed the
view of the board and dismissed the Letters Patent
Appeal preferred by the petitioner. The said judgment
is subject matter of challenge in this petition.
7. Mr. Rahul Bajaj, learned counsel representing
the petitioner, contended that the impugned
judgment and the decisions of both the medical
Boards are inherently flawed inasmuch as neither the
medical authorities nor the High Court duly adverted
to the crucial concepts of assistive devices and
reasonable accommodation to which the petitioner is
entitled, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 (for short ‘Act of 2016’). The vital factors,
i.e., the academic excellence of the petitioner, his
performance in the NEET examination, the high
placement in merit, were totally glossed over while
denying relief to the petitioner. Shri Bajaj relied upon
the judgments of this Court in Om Rathod v.
Director General of Health Sciences, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 4283 and Anmol v. Union of India &
Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387 , to urge that the
salutary principles provided under Article 41 of the
5
Constitution of India read with the Act of 2016 clearly
entitle the petitioner to seek medical education as
both these judgments expressly recognize the
concepts of assistive devices and reasonable
accommodation. By availing these moderations as
provided under the decisions of this Court, the
petitioner would be well equipped to perform his
duties as a Doctor.
8. Learned counsel submitted that in the case of
Om Rathod (supra) , despite the fact that the
candidate was not having both hands, he was held
entitled to undergo the MBBS course pursuant to an
assessment made by Dr. Satendra Singh, a specialist
in the field.
9. Learned counsel submitted that Dr. Satendra
Singh, while undertaking the functional assessment
of the candidate Shri Om Rathod posed four
questions for assessing his ability to undergo MBBS
course and concluded that all the questions had to be
answered in negative. The relevant excerpt from Om
Rathod’s judgment is quoted below: -
“11. Dr Satendra Singh submitted his
report on 20 October 2024. This Court duly
furnished the report to the second
respondent, National Medical Council, on
21 October 2024 to enable them to
formulate their response. The report by Dr
Satendra Singh outlined the functional
disability of the appellant to be an inability
to stand independently which may prove
limiting in clinical rotations in surgical
settings. The report suggested solutions to
enable the appellant in such cases. The
report further suggested clinical
6
accommodations for the appellant to reduce
the barriers he may encounter. The report
determined the accommodations necessary
for the appellant to be reasonable and in
compliance with existing norms. The report
formulated four questions and answered
them as follows:
“a) Would the proposed accommodation
result in a failure to meet the NMC CBME's
inherent requirements? Not in my opinion
b) Would the accommodation legitimately
jeopardize patient safety? Not in my opinion
c) Would the proposed accommodation
result in the improper waiver of a core
requirement of the CBME? Not in my
opinion
d) Would the proposed accommodation pose
an undue hardship on the medical college
(budgets wise)? Not in my opinion ”
10. In his report, Dr. Satendra Singh quoted that the
father of Neurosurgery Harvey Cushing emphasized
way back in 1912 that motor skills are often the least
important part of the work.
11. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner in
the case of Anmol (supra) was suffering from
locomotor disability assessed at 50% with club foot
right lower limb and Phocomelia (a congenital defect
which causes severe limb shortening or loss of long
bones), in left middle ring finger through middle
phalanx with right middle index finger through
middle phalanx. The candidate also suffered from
speech and language disability assessed at 20%.
7
12. Mr. Bajaj contended that the petitioner herein is
having much better physical/locomotor attributes
and is well equipped as compared to the two
candidates in the cases of Anmol (supra) and Om
Rathod (supra). He also scored much higher marks
than these candidates in NEET (UG) examination
2024-2025. Anmol had obtained rank 2462 in the
PwD category, whereas the petitioner herein secured
176 rank and thus, he is much better placed than the
candidates in the above-referred cases.
13. He submitted that the assessment made by the
medical Board of the petitioner’s capability to take the
medical degree course and his disqualification on the
anvil of NMC norms is illegal and unsustainable in
view of the law laid down by this Court in the
judgments referred to supra .
14. He, therefore, urged that a direction deserves to
be issued to have a reassessment done of the
petitioner through Dr. Satyendra Singh on the ratio of
the above referred judgments and to mandate the
respondents to grant admission and accommodate
the petitioner in the MBBS (UG) Course 2024-2025.
th
15. Relying upon the order dated 17 April, 2023,
passed in the case of Vibhushita Sharma v. Union
of India , Writ Petition (Civil) No.793 of 2022, learned
counsel submitted that in case, this Court is not
inclined to grant admission to the petitioner in the
2024-2025 MBBS Degree course, a suitable direction
deserves to be issued to the respondents to admit the
petitioner in the academic session 2025-2026 treating
him to be NEET (UG) qualified.
16. Per contra , learned counsel representing the
Union of India and National Medical Commission
urged that the Commission is under the process of
8
revising its guidelines in compliance with the
judgments in the cases of Om Rathod (supra) and
Anmol (supra) . Three meetings have already taken
place, and the process is expected to be finalised
before counselling for the next academic session
commences. They thus, urged that the petitioner will
not be prejudiced, if the consideration of this matter
is deferred till the new guidelines are put in place.
17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the material placed on record.
18. Prima facie, we find substance in the submission
of the learned counsel representing the respondents
that the process for revising the guidelines in terms of
this Court’s decisions (supra) is underway and a final
outcome is expected before the counselling session for
MBBS (UG) 2025-2026 commences. However, we are
not inclined to defer the proceedings at this stage.
19. Denying relief to the petitioner on this premise
would be totally unjustified in view of the ratio of this
Court’s judgments in Om Rathod (supra) and Anmol
( supra) . Merely because the NMC is under the process
of revising the guidelines, the petitioner’s fate cannot
be allowed to hang in a limbo in spite of the fact that
he has performed exceedingly well in the NEET (UG)
2024 examination and stood high in the merit in his
category.
20. In view of the above, we hereby direct that a fresh
Medical Board shall be constituted at the All-India
Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi comprising
of five Doctors/specialists. One of the Board members
shall be a specialist in locomotor disabilities and one
member shall be a Neuro-Physician.
9
21. The petitioner shall be intimated a suitable date
for assessment by the Board within the next seven
days. He shall appear before the Board on the
appointed date whereupon the Board shall undertake
a fresh assessment of the petitioner’s disabilities with
due deference to the ratio of this Court’s judgments
in Om Rathod (supra) and Anmol (supra) . The
Board’s report shall be forwarded to this Court in a
th
sealed cover on or before 15 April, 2025. ”
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the appellant
was subjected to extensive review assessment by a
Medical Board constituted at the All-India Institute of
Medical Sciences, New Delhi (for short ‘AIIMS, New
th
Delhi’). The report dated 24 April, 2025 has been
forwarded by the Medical Board, which is reproduced
hereinbelow for the sake of convenience: -
“Subject: Report of the medical board constituted at
AIIMS for medical examination of petitioner Sh. Kabir
Paharia in compliance of order dated 02.04.2025,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi (Section-
XIV)vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29275 of
2024 titled Kabir Paharia Versus National Medical
Commission & Others.
*
10
With reference to the aforementioned subject,
the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, New Delhi
constituted a Medical Board consisting of the
following members:-
1. Dr. S.L. Yadav - Chairperson
Professor, Deptt. of P.M.R.
2. Dr. Suman Jain - Member
Professor, Deptt. of Physiology
3. Dr. Divya M.R. - Member
Assoc. Professor, Deptt. of Neurology
4. Dr. Arun Kumar Choudhary - Member
Asstt. Professor, Deptt. of PMR
5. Dr. Sahil Batra - Member
Asstt. Professor, Deptt. of Orthopaedics
6. Dr. Veeranna B. - Member Secy.
Department of Hospital Administration
The meeting of the Medical Board was held on
16.04.2024 (Wednesday) at 11:00 A.M. in the
Seminar Room, Room No. 01, Ground floor, PMR
OPD, Department of PMR, AIIMS, New Delhi. The
available reports, earlier disability certificates and
medical documents were reviewed. The petitioner Sh.
Kabir Paharia was present and was examined by the
members of the Medical Board. The second board
nd
meeting was held on 22 April 2025 at 11:00 AM in
the SET facility convergence block, AIIMS, New Delhi.
Mr. Kabir Paharia underwent a comprehensive
neurological examination as part of the Medical Board
assessment. It was observed that Mr. Kabir has a
11
significant absence of multiple digits in both hands
(specifically, the index and middle fingers on the right
hand, and the index, middle, and ring fingers on the
left hand) as well as in the left foot (notably, the
second and third toes), which is attributed to a birth
complication as documented in the available medical
records. His condition is deemed non-progressive,
and the locomotor disability is classified as
permanent. The neurological examination showed
normal strength in the existing limbs and digits, with
intact sensations and good coordination of the
existing limbs and digits.
He was asked to demonstrate various skilled
techniques in the simulation laboratory, including
chest compressions, intravenous cannulation,
assembly of a laryngoscope, intubation, and suturing,
all of which he executed satisfactorily. He
demonstrated functional adaptation using his
existing digits during these tasks. However, the board
observed that he faced minor challenges while
attempting to put on the sterilized standard gloves.
He had slight coordination problems and delays
caused by the lack of fingers and empty finger slots in
the gloves. An evaluation by an occupational
therapist validated his independence in activities of
daily living (ADLs).”
6. A careful perusal of the above report makes it
amply clear that the appellant successfully
demonstrated skilled techniques in the simulation
laboratory including chest compressions, intravenous
12
cannulation, assembly of a laryngoscope, intubation
and suturing. The Medical Board, in its report,
observed that the appellant demonstrated the
functional adaptation using his existing digits during
these tasks. The only minor challenge, which the
appellant faced during the entire procedure, was
putting on the sterilized standard gloves.
7. We feel that the mindset must change and this
trivial aberration, by no stretch of imagination, can be
a ground to deny admission to the appellant in the
MBBS UG course, when he is otherwise qualified and
scored exceeding high rank in the NEET-UG 2024.
8. As per the result of NEET-UG 2024, the appellant
secured an All-India Rank of 147946. His Scheduled
Caste category rank was 7252, and his PwBD category
rank was 176. The appellant has also submitted details
13
of the provisional NEET-UG 2024 counselling seat
allotment (Round 1), according to which a candidate
with Roll No. 14491, who ranked 159816, was allocated
a seat at AIIMS, New Delhi under the Scheduled Castes
PwBD category. Apparently thus, a candidate who stood
much below the appellant in merit has been admitted
against the reserved seat at the AIIMS, New Delhi to
which the appellant had a valid claim.
9. Manifestly, in view of the observations made by us
nd
in the order dated 2 April, 2025 and the consequent
successful assessment of the appellant by the Medical
th
Board, AIIMS, New Delhi vide report dated 24 April,
2025, the denial of admission to the appellant in the
MBBS UG course was grossly illegal, arbitrary and
violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights as
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
14
of India. Such action not only reflects institutional bias
and systemic discrimination but also undermines the
principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination
enshrined in our constitutional framework. The
constitutional mandate of substantive equality
demands that person with disabilities (for short ‘PwD’)
and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations
rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based
on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities.
10. On the previous date of hearing, we had sought a
response from the learned counsel representing the
respondents regarding the appellant's submission that
the candidate who secured a rank lower than the
appellant had been granted admission against the
Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the MBBS UG course
at AIIMS, New Delhi, for the academic year 2024–2025.
15
11. Today, during the course of hearing, Ms. Archana
Pathak Dave, learned ASG, on instructions, fairly
affirms this assertion of the appellant. She further
states that as the appellant has been successfully
assessed by the Medical Board constituted at AIIMS,
New Delhi, he can be afforded admission in MBBS UG
course against the Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the
AIIMS, New Delhi in the forthcoming counselling
session of 2025-2026.
12. Taking consideration of the fact that the 2024-
2025 academic session must have progressed
significantly and thus it would not be expedient to grant
admission to the appellant in the said session. We
accordingly direct that the appellant shall be allocated
a seat in the MBBS UG course 2025 against the
Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the All-India Institute
16
of Medical Science, New Delhi, in the forthcoming
academic session.
13. In backdrop of the factual matrix narrated supra
and the comparative higher merit secured by the
appellant in the NEET-UG 2024 examination, we make
it clear that the appellant shall not be required to
undergo the NEET-UG 2025 examination.
14. We further direct that the National Medical
Commission shall forthwith and not later than within a
period of two months from today and at any cost before
the counselling for the 2025-2026 session commence,
complete the process of revising the guidelines in light
of judgments of this Court in Om Rathod v. Director
2
General of Health Sciences and Anmol v. Union of
3
India & Ors. so that no deserving candidate in the
2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 4283.
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 387.
17
PwBD category is denied admission into the MBBS
course in spite of his/her/their entitlement. It must be
ensured that systemic discrimination against persons
with benchmark disabilities, whether direct or indirect,
is eliminated and that the admission process upholds
their right to equal opportunity and dignity.
15. The constitutional promise of equality is not
merely formal but substantive, requiring the State to
take affirmative measures to ensure that PwD and
PwBD can meaningfully participate in all spheres of life,
including professional education. We emphasize that
reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity
but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16,
and 21 of our Constitution. When administrative
authorities create arbitrary barriers that exclude
qualified PwBD candidates, they not only violate
18
statutory provisions but also perpetuate the historical
injustice and stigmatisation. The fundamental rights
and the dignity of PwD and PwBD candidates must be
protected by ensuring that assessment of their
capabilities is individualised, evidence-based, and free
from stereotypical assumptions that have no scientific
foundation.
16. Before parting, we express our wholehearted
appreciation for Mr. Rahul Bajaj and Mr. Amar Jain,
learned counsel, both persons with benchmark
disability (zero vision), for the excellent assistance
provided by them during the course of hearing of the
present matter. We also express our sincere
appreciation to Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior
counsel, for his pro bono services and Ms. Archana
19
Pathak Dave, learned ASG, for her pragmatic approach
in the matter.
th
17. The impugned order dated 12 November, 2024,
passed by the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 967 of 2024 is set aside.
18. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in
these terms. No order as to costs.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 02, 2025.
20