Courts will not override medical-board findings on MBBS eligibility absent contrary expert evidence.

The petitioner sought consideration for NEET-UG 2026 admission under the PwBD/PwD category.

A Medical Assessment Board assessed him as having 45% locomotor disability but concluded that he did not meet the functional competencies required by the competency-based medical education (CBME) curriculum, including for certain procedures, and that reasonable accommodation would not mitigate the risk to patient safety.

The appellate Board upheld that assessment.

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Anmol v. Union of India, where admission had been confirmed on the basis of an independent expert report.

A separate four-member Board also found the petitioner ineligible for the Indian Medicine course; the respondents submitted that he could opt for Homeopathy.

1. Whether the Court should interfere with the Medical Assessment Board’s conclusion that the petitioner was not eligible to pursue the MBBS course under the PwBD/PwD category

2. Whether the petitioner could be considered for admission to the Homeopathy course on opting for that stream

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court considered the CBME curriculum’s functional competencies and the medical boards’ assessments of the petitioner’s capacity to meet them, including patient-safety concerns.

It also considered Anmol v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 14333 of 2024, but noted that the Supreme Court’s decision rested on an independent expert report; the judgment identifies no further statutory provision or general legal test.

The Court declined to interfere with the MBBS assessment because the Medical Assessment Board had found that the petitioner could not fulfil essential CBME competencies and that the appellate Board had affirmed that conclusion.

Unlike Anmol, there was no contrary expert opinion before the Court to displace the medical boards’ assessment.

As to Homeopathy, the Court accepted the respondents’ submission that the petitioner could opt for that course and directed that, if he did so, his candidature be considered in light of the opinion and assessment applicable to that stream.

It granted the petitioner liberty to opt for Homeopathy and directed that his candidature be considered on the basis of the assessment for that course.

The writ petition was disposed of, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded.