Valid UDID disability rating must be respected for MBBS PwBD admission unless the medical board uses better assessment tools, Madras High Court rules

The petitioner held a UDID card recording 50% locomotor disability, issued on 10 June 2025, and applied for NEET-UG 2026 under the PwBD category.

During counselling, the Regional Medical Board assessed his disability at 25%; on appeal, the Appellate Medical Assessment Board assessed it at 30%.

The petitioner challenged the appellate assessment, contending that it conflicted with his valid UDID card and that the Boards had not used better or additional assessment equipment.

He sought permission to participate in MBBS counselling/admission under the PwBD quota on the basis of that card.

1. Whether the Medical Assessment Board and Appellate Medical Assessment Board could re-determine the petitioner’s disability percentage despite his valid UDID card, where they had not used better or additional assessment tools or equipment.

2. Whether the petitioner could participate in MBBS counselling/admission under the PwBD quota on the basis of his UDID card recording 50% disability.

Article 226 of the Constitution provides the Court’s jurisdiction to review the challenged assessment and grant appropriate relief.

Clause 2 of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities’ Revised Advisory dated 15 October 2025 permits medical institutions or boards to use better tools, equipment, machines or technologies for a more accurate disability assessment, and contemplates re-determination in that context.

Under clauses 9.2 and 9.6 of the National Medical Commission’s Guidelines on Assessment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, a valid UDID card is the primary documentary evidence of the disability, and a candidate is not to be denied PwBD consideration solely for a rectifiable procedural defect where the disability is otherwise established.

The Court found that the petitioner’s 50% disability was recorded in a valid UDID card issued by the competent authority and that the Medical Assessment Board and appellate Board had assessed him at 25% and 30%, respectively.

The Boards had not used new, better or advanced tools or equipment than those used in the Department’s assessment.

Applying Clause 2 of the Revised Advisory and clauses 9.2 and 9.6 of the Guidelines, the Court held that re-determining the petitioner’s disability in those circumstances was unsustainable and that the UDID card should be relied on for PwBD consideration.

No costs were ordered.