OMKAR vs THE UNION OF INDIA, 2024

OMKAR vs THE UNION OF INDIA, 2024

Case Title and Citation: Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India 2024 INSC 775 (15 October 2024)

Factual Background

The Appellant, Omkar Ramchandra Gond, had a speech and language disability diagnosed as Hypernasality with Misarticulation in K/C/O Repaired Bilateral Cleft of Palate. Despite creditable academic performance, the Appellant faced legal obstacles in pursuing his aspiration to become a doctor. He applied for the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET UG) 2024 under the Persons with Disability (PwD) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) categories and qualified for the exam. A Disability Assessment Board examined him and certified his permanent disability at 44% or 45%. The Board then rendered him ineligible for the medical course based on quantification alone, citing the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines. These guidelines, contained in Appendix H-1 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, specifically stated that persons with equal to or more than 40% Speech and Language disability were Not Eligible for the MBBS Course. The Bombay High Court dismissed the Appellant’s challenge to the NMC’s eligibility criteria. The Appellant then urgently approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in an interim order, directed a seat be kept vacant for the Appellant and ordered Maulana Azad Medical College to form a Medical Board to assess if the disability would impede his pursuit of the MBBS course. This subsequent Medical Board opined that the disability would not hinder the Appellant from pursuing the course.

Issue(s)

1. Should a candidate who qualifies for the MBBS course under the PwD category be disqualified solely because the quantified percentage of their specified disability (40% or more) exceeds the eligibility limit set by the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines, even if the disability does not impede their ability to pursue the course?
2. Whether the NMC regulations, by creating a scenario where candidates with less than 40% disability are ineligible for the PwD reservation and those with 40% or more are ineligible for the course itself, violate the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution?

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, through a Three-Judge Bench, set aside the order of the Bombay High Court and granted admission to the Appellant in the MBBS course based on the favorable opinion of the Medical Board. The Court held that quantified disability percentage alone cannot disqualify a candidate if a proper assessment determines they can pursue the course.

Reason for the decision

The Court’s reasoning centered on the principles of constitutional equality, purposive interpretation of disability legislation, and the State’s duty toward persons with disabilities:

• Purposive Interpretation and Violation of Article 14: The Court noted that a literal interpretation of Appendix H-I of the NMC Regulations led to an “absurd position” where no candidate in the Speech and Language category would be eligible for the 5% PwD quota, which cannot be accepted. Furthermore, treating all candidates with a benchmark disability of 40% or above as ineligible, without differentiating based on their actual capacity to complete the course, amounts to treating unequals equally (over-inclusion). This violated the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Mandate of the RPwD Act and State Responsibility: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, seeks to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, imposing obligations on the State to ensure equality, non-discrimination, and inclusion. Inclusive education is a constitutional goal under Article 41. The provision for 5% reservation in higher education for persons with benchmark disabilities must be interpreted to further these objectives.
• Principle of Reasonable Accommodation: The Court emphasized the concept of reasonable accommodation (defined in Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act). This principle requires necessary modifications and adjustments to ensure the full and effective participation of disabled persons in society. The Court stressed that the “One Size Fits All” approach, which relies purely on a percentage threshold, is inappropriate for assessing eligibility for the reserved seats.
• Role of Disability Assessment Boards: Disability Assessment Boards are not merely “monotonous automations” meant to calculate percentages. They are obligated to examine the crucial question of whether the disability will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the specific course. If a Board concludes a candidate is ineligible, it must provide reasons for that decision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that quantified disability percentage is not the sole determinant of eligibility for the MBBS course under the PwD category. The judgment directs Disability Assessment Boards to prioritize a functional assessment of whether the disability impedes the candidate’s ability to pursue the course. The Court also issued mandatory directions for judicial review, requiring courts to refer disputed cases to premier medical institutes for independent opinions until an appellate body is created by the government.