Medical aspirant with 60% UDID disability can join NEET-UG PwBD counselling despite board’s 13% assessment, Madras HC rules

The petitioner, who has a locomotor disability, possessed a UDID Card issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities recording 60% disability, issued on 27 March 2024.

He applied for NEET-UG 2026 under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category.

During counselling, the Selection Committee required a certificate from a Medical Assessment Board.

The Regional Medical Board assessed the petitioner’s disability at 13%, and the Appellate Disability Assessment Board confirmed that assessment.

Since the PwBD quota required at least 40% disability, the petitioner challenged the two eligibility certificates and sought permission to participate in counselling on the basis of his 60% UDID certification.

The petitioner also contended that the Medical Boards had not used any new or superior tools or equipment warranting a fresh assessment.

Whether the Regional Medical Board and the Appellate Disability Assessment Board could re-determine the petitioner’s disability percentage, contrary to the 60% disability recorded in his valid UDID Card, without using superior or additional assessment tools and equipment.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered for admission to the MBBS course under the PwBD category on the basis of his valid UDID Card.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the NMC’s Guidelines on Assessment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities.

Under Clause 9.2, a valid Permanent UDID Card issued through the UDID Portal is the primary documentary evidence of the existence, nature and extent of the specified disability.

Clause 9.6 provides that a candidate should not be denied consideration under the PwBD category solely because of a procedural defect or discrepancy in the UDID Card where the disability is otherwise established.

The Court also relied on Clause 2 of the Revised Advisory dated 15 October 2025, which permits medical institutions or boards to undertake an additional or fresh assessment where they possess better tools, equipment, machines or technology capable of producing a more accurate assessment.

The Guidelines were framed pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 2024.

The petitioner’s valid UDID Card recorded a 60% locomotor disability, whereas the Regional and Appellate Medical Boards assessed him at 13%, despite there being no change in his physical condition.

The Court interpreted Clause 2 of the Revised Advisory as permitting re-assessment only where the assessing institution uses better or additional tools and equipment than those used for the original assessment.

Since the respondents had not used any new or advanced equipment, their re-determination of the disability percentage was inconsistent with the Advisory.

Further, because Clause 9.2 treats the UDID Card as the primary documentary evidence of disability, the petitioner’s valid 60% certification could not be displaced merely by a conflicting assessment unsupported by superior assessment methodology.

Accordingly, the 13% assessments could not be mechanically treated as conclusive for denying the petitioner consideration under the PwBD quota.

The Selection Committee was directed to permit him to participate in the subsequent NEET-UG 2026 counselling under the PwBD quota on the basis of his valid UDID Card recording 60% disability; the Court also noted that one seat had already been directed to be reserved for him.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.