New Delhi: A Delhi High Court Bench Wednesday struck down a statutory rule prohibiting students from transferring between medical colleges, while deciding on a plea moved by a 40 percent visually impaired medical student.
The court ruled that a “blanket ban” on such transfers is unconstitutional, particularly when it fails to account for the fundamental rights of students with disabilities. With this observation, it declared Regulation 18 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, as “unconstitutional”.
The judgment has emphasised that the ban violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India that protects citizens against arbitrary state action, as the rule “suffers from the vice of manifest unreasonableness and arbitrariness”.
Rule 18 breaches the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PwD) Act, 2016, which mandates “reasonable accommodation”, defined as necessary modifications to ensure persons with disabilities can exercise their rights equally with others, the court, specifically, has said.
“Such provisions [of the PwD Act of 2016] enacted by the Parliament cannot remain only a decorative and admirable piece of literature kept in a bookshelf, rather they are statutory legislative mandates to be followed by the government, government authorities, instrumentalities of the state, statutory bodies, and all other public bodies, which will encompass in its fold the commission as well,” the court has further said.
Sahil Arsh & his petition
The decision was a response to a petition filed by Sahil Arsh, an MBBS student suffering from a 40 percent visual impairment and denied a transfer despite deteriorating health conditions after initially being denied his right to participate in NEET-UG 2023 counselling under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category.
The Delhi High Court has recorded an intervention by the Supreme Court, ensuring that the petitioner was treated as a person with disability. However, by the time he was allowed to participate, only a “stray vacancy round” remained, leaving him with limited options and forcing him to join a college in Barmer, Rajasthan.
The “harsh climate” of Barmer, according to the petitioner, does not “suit him”, and his disability relating to vision impairment “started deteriorating”, as he started developing ulcers in his eyes on account of high temperatures. This also “hampered his day-to-day capabilities and his treatment”.
Moreover—the court has noted—the petitioner listening to the reference of his medical doctor receives treatment at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. This condition compelled him to seek his migration from the Government Medical College of Barmer to any college in Delhi.
Accordingly, he obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which revealed that University College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Dilshad Garden, had a seat available under the PwD reservation category in the MBBS course.
Despite having a clear medical need to move to Delhi for treatment at AIIMS, the National Medical Commission (NMC) did not respond to the petitioner’s request for a transfer.
On hearing an initial and separate writ petition, the Delhi HC, in 2024, ordered the NMC to comply with the petitioner’s request and take a decision on his transfer application. The NMC, however, rejected his migration request, citing Regulation 18.
Why the rule was struck down
The NMC defended Regulation 18, which stated that “no student… shall seek migration to any other medical institution”. The commission argued that this was necessary to ensure “uniformity and standardisation” and to prevent the “misuse of the migration facility” for “backdoor entries”.
However, the court found these arguments insufficient to justify a total prohibition.
A bench of Chief Justice D. K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, on 4 February, declared Regulation 18 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, to be “manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary”. The court noted that “administrative efficiency” cannot be elevated to a standard that justifies the “non-performance of essential functions” or the denial of legitimate rights.
The court has criticised the NMC’s rejection order, which suggested the student, firstly, should have chosen a Delhi college, calling the observation “short of rubbing salt in the wounds of the petitioner”. The judges said that the student was in the situation because the authorities had wrongfully excluded him from earlier counselling rounds.
‘Misuse is no excuse for a blanket ban’
A key takeaway from the judgment is that the “possibility of abuse” of a rule cannot be used as a reason to “deny legitimate rights to citizens”.
While the NMC was concerned about students circumventing the merit system, the court has now ruled that the solution is to “put proper safeguards in place”, rather than imposing a “total prohibition”. The court explained its decision, saying the “reason is the foundation of all laws” and a law that restricts must do so based on “reason”.
The Delhi High Court has now directed the NMC to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s transfer request within three weeks. More importantly, the commission has been ordered to “formulate a proper policy” that allows for migration in “extremely exceptional circumstances” and “most deserving cases”.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)