UDID Disability Percentage Cannot Be Reduced by Medical Boards at MBBS Admission Stage, Delhi High Court Rules

The petitioners were NEET (UG) 2026 candidates with valid permanent Disability Certificates and UDID cards recording benchmark disabilities of 61% locomotor disability and 60% visual disability, respectively.

Both appeared in NEET (UG) 2026 under the PwBD category and obtained PwBD ranks.

Under the Guidelines on Assessment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities for Admission to the MBBS Course, 2026, they appeared before Medical Assessment Boards for eligibility certificates.

The Board reassessed Aashiya’s disability at 16% and Shivam Kumar’s at 30%, although their respective UDID cards recorded disabilities exceeding the 40% benchmark threshold.

In both cases, the Boards nevertheless found the petitioners functionally capable of pursuing the MBBS course and not a threat to patients.

The appellate Boards affirmed the reduced disability percentages, following which the petitioners were denied participation in counselling under the PwBD category.

Whether the Medical Assessment Boards, while assessing eligibility for admission to the MBBS course, could reassess or reduce the percentage of disability recorded in a valid UDID card for determining PwBD reservation eligibility.

Whether the Medical Assessment Boards’ role was confined to determining the petitioners’ functional competency to pursue the MBBS course and practise medicine.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to participate in subsequent NEET (UG) 2026 counselling rounds under the PwBD category on the basis of the disabilities recorded in their UDID cards.

The Court applied Sections 56, 57 and 59 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, under which disability assessment is undertaken by designated certifying authorities and an aggrieved person may challenge the certification through the prescribed appellate mechanism.

Rules 17–19 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 establish the procedure for issuance of disability certificates and provide that certificates issued under Rule 18 are generally valid for availing disability-related benefits.

Clauses 2.4, 3.9, 6.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the 2026 Guidelines distinguish between the benchmark disability recorded in the UDID card and functional competency: the UDID card is the primary documentary evidence of the nature and extent of disability, while the Medical Assessment Board must independently assess whether the candidate can perform the essential competencies of the MBBS curriculum.

Relying on Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services , (2024) 19 SCC 70, the Court held that Medical Boards must adopt a functional-competency approach and cannot merely quantify disability at the admission stage; the percentage recorded in the UDID card may be used for reservation eligibility.

The Court held that the Guidelines empowered the Medical Assessment Boards to determine whether the petitioners could complete the MBBS curriculum and subsequently undertake the medical profession, but did not authorise them to reopen or reduce the disability percentage certified in the UDID cards.

Both petitioners had been expressly found functionally competent, capable of pursuing MBBS and not a threat to patients.

The Boards nevertheless treated their reassessed percentages—16% and 30%—as determinative of PwBD eligibility.

This approach improperly conflated functional assessment with quantification of disability and undermined the statutory status of the UDID cards.

If the authorities disputed the disability percentage, they were required to pursue the statutory appellate mechanism under the RPwD Act rather than disregard the existing certificates at the counselling stage.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Boards had exceeded their jurisdiction by reducing the recorded disability percentages.

The respondents were directed to treat the petitioners’ disabilities as recorded in their valid UDID cards and permit them to participate in the third counselling round and any available mop-up round under the PwBD category, in accordance with their ranks and entitlement.

The Court declined to direct the creation of supernumerary seats because further counselling rounds remained available to accommodate the petitioners.