New Delhi: In a judgment that is likely to further opportunities for the differently abled, the Supreme Court held Tuesday that the mere existence of a benchmark disability cannot be a ground to bar an individual from applying to an academic programme.
A three-judge bench led by Justice B. R. Gavai gave the decision while approving the admission of a medical aspirant from Maharashtra, whose speech and language disability was quantified at 44-45 per cent. The petitioner, Omkar Ramachandra Gond, was denied admission on the ground of having a benchmark disability.
The term benchmark disability, found in job applications and college forms, refers to having at least 40 percent disability of any type recognised in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
Gond had sought admission under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) quota. Under the current legal framework, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 mandates 5 percent reservation for disabled persons in government and government-aided higher institutions and a 4 percent quota in government jobs.
However, Gond was not given the benefits of reservation because his disability was found to be more than 40 percent, which is the benchmark disability prescribed in the law and incorporated in the Graduate Medical Education Regulation of 2019 that governs admission to all undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses.
Emphasising the objectives of the 2016 law, the SC bench, also comprising justices K. V. Vishwanathan and Aravind Kumar, said the legislation aims to respect the disabled community’s individual autonomy, non-discrimination, equal opportunity and full participation in society.
It went on to direct that the Disability Assessment Boards are not to function as “monotonous automations” to merely check the percentage of disability. They must focus on how to accommodate and provide opportunities for candidates with disabilities, rather than seeking ways to disqualify them or hinder their educational goals. Under the law, Disability Assessment Boards have to measure the disability of a candidate and provide a certificate quantifying it.
The Board’s role is to determine whether a candidate’s disability will impede their ability to pursue the course that they have chosen for their career, the bench said, as it went on to give specific directions on how to assess a candidate’s capability.
Also Read: My wheelchair visit to Humayun Tomb stopped at Isa Khan. Sympathy can’t replace rights
What’s the case
The son of a middle-class family in Latur, Maharashtra, Gond sat for the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) this year for admission to an MBBS course under the PwD and Other Backward Classes (OBC) quotas. Admittedly, he had speech and language disability and was diagnosed with hypernasality with misarticulation.
A disability certificate issued to him in May 2015 certified him to have 45 per cent speech and language disability.
Gond qualified in the NEET and was selected for counselling as well. Since the admission regulations required him to submit a fresh disability certificate, he approached the Designated Disability Certification Centre at Sir JJ Group of Hospitals in August this year. The certificate issued to him reiterated the percentage of his disability and alongwith that declared him ineligible to pursue a medical course as per the norms of the National Medical Commission (NMC) — the regulator for medical education in India.
In view of this opinion, Gond was not given admission in a medical course, which he challenged before the Bombay High Court.
Gond questioned the Graduate Medical Education Regulations of 1997, amended in 2019, which prescribed the disability benchmark. Specifically, he questioned a new appendix — Appendix H-1 — that provided guidelines for admission of students with specific disabilities under the 2016 Act, to MBBS courses.
The guidelines, Gond’s submission said, did not permit those with less than 40 percent speech and language disability to avail the reservation benefits. And those who had equal or more than 40 percent disability were not eligible for medical courses under the quota.
Gond argued that the NMC is not empowered to lay down eligibility criteria in such a manner as to altogether take away benefits under the 2016 Act.
Gond could not get interim relief from the Bombay HC. The court issued notice on 29 August on his petition, but did not allow him to participate in the centralised admission process for the MBBS course. The HC simply stood over the matter to 19 September, 2024.
The question before Supreme Court
But with time running out for him, Gond moved the Supreme Court. Before the top court, the question was whether a candidate should be disqualified merely because their disability is quantified at 44 or 45 percent.
First, the SC ordered a fresh examination of Gond and directed the dean, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College and Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, to constitute a medical board, which, the court said, should include a domain expertise pertaining to Gond’s disability. The board was to specifically examine whether the speech and language disability of the appellant would come in his way of pursuing the MBBS degree course.
Later, this task was entrusted to Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC), since the Pune-based hospital did not have the facility. In contrast to the opinion of JJ hospital, Mumbai, the MAMC board opined that Gond’s speech and language disability would not come in the way of pursuing the MBBS course.
Also Read: PwDs to now pay for Puja Khedkar’s actions. New rules have complicated certification process
Purposive interpretation of the law
Armed with the fresh assessment report, the apex court paved the way for Gond’s admission by providing purposive interpretation to the 2016 law on reservation for the disability. Purposive interpretation is interpreting statutes and constitutions in line with the law’s purpose and context.
The SC also drew support from the Directive Principles of State Policy chapter of the Constitution that calls for equal opportunities in education as well as the workplace for aged, sick and disabled persons.
The government, the court observed, is required to achieve this constitutional goal by making effective provisions for securing rights for such a vulnerable group.
The court first declared that the insertion of Appendix H-1 to admission regulations cannot be the legal position as far as letting a candidate apply under the speech and language disability category is concerned. It said Appendix H-1 created an absurd situation as it denied candidates with less than 40 percent disability from the opportunity to apply under the reserved category, and declared those with more than 40 percent disability as ineligible. Such an “over-inclusion”, it said, was contrary to the principles of Article 14 that promises equality.
Highlighting the salutary provisions of the 2016 law, the court said the current legal regime governing rights of the disabled prohibits their non-discrimination, while affording them inherent autonomy and freedom to make their own choices to live with dignity.
‘Reasonable accommodation’
The bench discussed some provisions of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act that deal with inclusive education and benchmark disability. It gave a broader meaning to the phrase “reasonable accommodation” mentioned in section 2(y). Section 2 talks about the government’s duty to ensure that people with disabilities have the same legal capacity as others in all aspects of life.
Section 2(y) specifically allows authorities to modify regulations in order to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to exercise their rights equally with others. According to this subsection, “reasonable accommodation” means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case.
Stressing on the importance of section 2(y), the court said that reasonable accommodation would include making necessary adjustments to ensure equal participation for persons with disabilities.
Adopting a purposive interpretation of the RPwD Act and, more particularly, of the provisions extracted, the court held that “merely because of the quantification of the disability for speech and language at 40% or above, a candidate does not forfeit his right to stake a claim for admission to course of their choice”.
Section 2(y), the court added, cannot be understood narrowly to mean that adjustment or modifications would include “only the provision of assisting devices and other tangible substances which will aid persons with disabilities”.
“If the mandate of the law is to ensure a full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in the society and if the whole idea was to exclude conditions that prevent their full and effective participation as equal members of society, a broad interpretation of the concept of reasonable accommodation which will further the objective of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy is mandated,” the court said, as it directed the Disabilities Assessment Boards not to be antithetical to the objectives of the law.
‘Form appellate body where decisions can be challenged’
The court also came down heavily on the Disability Assessment Boards for assessing candidates mechanically and directed them to state reasons for declaring someone ineligible to pursue a course.
It said the boards must positively record whether the disability would impede the candidate’s ability to complete the course. It also held that candidates can challenge negative opinions of the Disability Assessment Boards through judicial review. The courts, it added, would have to refer such cases to premier medical institutions for independent opinions.
The court also pointed out that the NMC, on the lines of the exercise undertaken by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), has to work out functional classifications and physical requirements consistent with the requirements of the medical profession and review its regulations accordingly.
Moreover, in line with a communication sent to it by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in January this year, the NMC was obliged to review its regulations regarding admissions under the disability quota and also set up an appellate body where decisions of Disabilities Medical Boards could be challenged.
While directing the NMC to look into these suggestions, the court said it hoped the NMC’s fresh guidelines would be inclusive to further the concept of reasonable accommodation as recognised in the 2016 law.
Until the NMC constitutes an appellate authority, the bench directed Disabilities Assessment Boards to follow the principles that were outlined in the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s letter to NMC, emphasising on the need to incorporate advancements in assisting technologies, which are capable of reducing the effects of disability.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)