Over the past year, the National Medical Commission, the regulatory body for medical education and professionals in India, has been involved in various litigation before the Supreme Court and several high courts, particularly regarding the undergraduate admission process for Persons with Disabilities under the five per cent reserved admission quota.
Under the erstwhile system, a PwD candidate seeking admission or reservation in an undergraduate medical programme through the NEET UG exam was required to undergo a fresh assessment by a Disability Assessment Board (DAB), even if they already held a valid disability certificate and a Unique Disability ID (UDID) card under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
The process followed by the said Disability Assessment Board was opaque, with only a single line at the bottom of the certificate indicating whether the candidate was eligible for admission. If deemed eligible, the certificate would further state whether the candidate qualified for reservation benefits.
As a result, many candidates who met the 40 per cent disability benchmark set by the 2016 Act found themselves declared ineligible to pursue medicine, despite clearing the highly competitive NEET UG exam.
Legal developments
Over the past year, many PwD candidates approached high courts and the Supreme Court, challenging their disqualification by DABs. Three such cases decided by the Supreme Court have since laid down the law for the NMC.
In Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India, the Supreme Court warned against disqualifying a meritorious candidate solely based on his disability percentage. The court held that such an approach, particularly Appendix H-1 of the NMC guidelines, was antithetical to the fundamental rights to equality and life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The court further ruled that DABs must not mechanically look at the disability percentage to disqualify candidates. Instead, they should give reasons for disqualification, explicitly recording whether the disability would obstruct the candidate from pursuing their chosen medical course. The Supreme Court also noted a communication from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which urged the NMC to “immediately review” its guidelines to consider “functional requirements” when drawing up new regulations. The court directed the NMC to complete this review “before the publication of the admission brochure for the academic year 2025-26”.
These directions were reiterated in Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services, where the Supreme Court further developed the jurisprudence on functional assessment for candidates with disabilities. The court instructed DABs to abandon their rigid reliance on disability percentage calculations and instead assess candidates based on their functional abilities. This shift aims to ensure fairness, transparency, and compliance with legal and constitutional principles. Strengthening the human rights model of disability, the Supreme Court built on NMC’s earlier reassurance of constituting a new committee of domain experts to frame fresh guidelines. It directed that the committee must include experts with disabilities or people with experience in disability justice.
Taking inclusivity a step further, the Supreme Court also directed authorities to create a database for NEET aspirants, which would inform them about the accessibility facilities available at various medical colleges.
After the Omkar Gond and Om Rathod judgments, the third case in this trilogy, Anmol v. Union of India, was delivered recently. The Supreme Court once again took note of the NMC’s reassurances in the earlier cases and posted the matter for further review on 14 March, directing the NMC to file a compliance report.
Also read: New disability quota rules can make life harder for PwDs, burden govt medical systems
The way forward
It is clear that the NMC has a history of promptly extending reassurances to courts. However, this urgency ought to be extended toward making genuine efforts to restructure the medical admission process and ensure greater inclusivity for persons with disabilities.
Meanwhile, the National Testing Agency (NTA) has already started the NEET UG 2025 application process on 7 February and released the information brochure—which is at variance with the clear directions laid out by the Supreme Court in Omkar Gond, Om Rathod, and Anmol.
Despite the court’s explicit guidance, the NMC continues to rely on a percentage-based model to disqualify disabled NEET applicants, with no mention of a detailed functionality assessment. After the Supreme Court made its directions very clear in the three judgments, one would have expected a completely redefined role for DABs—perhaps restructured as Ability Assessment Boards. Yet, the NEET UG 2025 information bulletin shows only minor deviations from previous versions.
Disability rights activists have already flagged this discrepancy between the Supreme Court’s rulings and the contents of the NEET UG brochure.
However, not all hope is lost. NMC secretary Dr B Srinivas has reportedly assured that the Under-Graduate Medical Education Board (UGMEB) is finalising a draft of fresh guidelines, set to be released before counselling for the next academic session begins. With the next hearing scheduled for 14 March, it will be interesting to see what the NMC submits in its affidavit. One can only hope that the NEET UG 2025 brochure is recalled and revised in time for disabled aspirants to benefit from the changes in the 2025-26 cycle.
Mohammad Nasir is Assistant Professor of Law at Aligarh Muslim University and author of Syed Mahmood: Colonial India’s Dissenting Judge (Bloomsbury 2022); he posts on X @Mohamma55165777. Taha Bin Tasneem is Lead, Grievance Redressal and Strategic Intervention at Mission Accessibility, New Delhi.
Views are personal.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)