UDID disability percentage cannot be reduced by medical admission boards, Calcutta High Court rules

The petitioner participated in NEET (UG) 2026 as a Person with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) and obtained an All India PwBD rank of 275043.

His Unique Disability ID (UDID), issued on 7 August 2026 by the competent authority, recorded a permanent locomotor disability of 60% affecting his right lower limb.

Under the applicable MBBS admission guidelines, he was required to produce a disability certificate issued by a Medical Assessment Board and demonstrate functional competence for the course.

The Medical Assessment Board found him functionally competent to pursue the MBBS curriculum, requiring no assistive technology or supportive measures and posing no risk to patient safety; however, it reassessed his disability at 30%, thereby treating him as ineligible for PwBD reservation.

The Appellate Authority affirmed that conclusion on 14 August 2026, while also finding that the petitioner could successfully complete the MBBS course and acquire the prescribed competencies.

The petitioner challenged the authorities’ reassessment of the quantum of his disability, contending that they were competent only to assess his functionality and not to alter the disability percentage recorded in the UDID.

1. Whether the Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Authority could reassess and reduce the petitioner’s certified percentage of disability recorded in his UDID for the purpose of determining PwBD eligibility.

2. Whether, after finding the petitioner functionally competent to pursue and complete the MBBS course and safe for patients, the authorities could deny him PwBD reservation solely because they assessed his disability at 30%.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a fresh eligibility certificate and participation in the next round of counselling on the basis of the 60% disability recorded in his UDID.

The Court applied Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, under which a “person with benchmark disability” includes a person with not less than 40% of a specified disability, as certified by the competent certifying authority.

It held that the authority legally empowered under the Act and the applicable disability-certification framework to assess and certify the quantum of disability is distinct from the Medical Assessment Board constituted for evaluating a candidate’s functional capacity for medical education.

The Court relied on Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130, and Mitadru Sau v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 10317, for the principle that the certified quantum of disability cannot be reassessed by the Medical Assessment Board or appellate body, which must instead assess functionality and suitability for the course.

The applicable MBBS guidelines require assessment of functional competency, reasonable accommodation, assistive technology, ability to complete the course, and patient safety.

The petitioner’s 60% disability had already been assessed and certified by the competent authority under the statutory disability-certification framework and was reflected in his UDID.

The Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Authority therefore exceeded their permissible role by substituting their own assessment of the quantum of disability and reducing it to 30%.

Their proper task was to determine whether the petitioner could undertake the MBBS course with reasonable accommodation, complete the prescribed competencies, and practise without compromising patient safety.

On each of those functional criteria, the authorities found in the petitioner’s favour.

Consequently, the reduction of the disability percentage could not lawfully be used to deny PwBD reservation, since the petitioner’s benchmark-disability status had to be determined by reference to the competent authority’s certification reflected in the UDID.

Their conclusion that the petitioner was ineligible for PwBD reservation was set aside.

The 60% disability certified by the competent authority and reflected in the UDID was directed to be treated as final.

Since the petitioner had passed the functional assessment, the Medical Assessment Board was directed to issue a fresh eligibility certificate relying on the UDID disability percentage before the next counselling round.

The petitioner was consequently permitted to participate in the next round of counselling as a PwBD candidate.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.