New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that a constitutional court examining the plea of discrimination is mandated to consider whether real equality exists and also obliged to probe as to whether beneath the veneer of equality there is any invidious breach of Article 14.
The apex court cited national and international luminaries in various fields to emphasize on the importance of accommodating persons with disabilities in society and institutions, while ruling that mere existence of a benchmark disability of 40 per cent does not bar a person from pursuing medical education unless there is an expert report that the candidate was incapacitated from pursuing MBBS.
A bench comprising justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K V Viswanathan said: “We hold that quantified disability per se will not disentitle a candidate with benchmark disability from being considered for admission to educational institutions”.
Justice Viswanathan, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said the candidate will be eligible, if the disability assessment board opines that notwithstanding the quantified disability the candidate can pursue the course in question.
“The Disability Assessment Boards assessing the candidates should positively record whether the disability of the candidate will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question. The Disability Assessment Boards should state reasons in the event of the Disability Assessment Boards concluding that the candidate is not eligible for pursuing the course”, said the apex court.
The bench said the disability assessment boards will, pending formulation of appropriate regulations by the National Medical Commission (NMC), pursuant to the communication of January 21, 2024, by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, keep in mind the salutary points mentioned in the said communication while forming their opinion.
Justice Viswanathan said a constitutional court examining the plea of discrimination is mandated to consider whether real equality exists, and added that this court is not to be carried away by a projection of facial equality. “Viewed at first blush, the regulation providing that all persons with 40% or more disability are uniformly barred from pursuing the medical course in the category of speech and language disability, may appear non-discriminatory. But here too, appearances can be deceptive. The court of law is obliged to probe as to whether beneath the veneer of equality there is any invidious breach of Article 14”, said Justice Viswanathan.
The apex court made it clear that pending creation of the appellate body, “we further direct that such decisions of the Disability Assessment Boards which give a negative opinion for the candidate will be amenable to challenge in judicial review proceedings”.
“The court seized of the matter in the judicial review proceedings shall refer the case of the candidate to any premier medical institute having the facility, for an independent opinion and relief to the candidate will be granted or denied based on the opinion of the said medical institution to which the High Court had referred the matter”, said the bench.
The apex court said disabilities assessment boards are not monotonous automations to just look at the quantified benchmark disability as set out in the certificate of disability and cast aside the candidate. “Such an approach would be antithetical to Article 14 and Article 21 and all canons of justice, equity, and good conscience”, said the bench.
The bench said it should be borne in mind that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), which was enacted to give effect to the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities - was with the objective of granting persons with disabilities full and effective participation and inclusion in society, grant them equal opportunity and to show respect for their inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make their own choices.
The bench observed that dealing with an absolute bar imposed on women in seeking criteria or command appointments, this court, while finding that such prescription fell foul of Article 14 held that implicit in the guarantee of equality is the principle that where the action of the state does differentiate between two classes of person, it does not differentiate them in an unreasonable or irrational manner.
"This Court further held that the right to equality is a right to rationality and whether a particular candidate should or should not be granted, could be a matter for the competent authority to decide but a blanket non-consideration of women for criteria or command appointments absent an individuated justification was not sustainable in law", noted the bench.
The apex court emphasized that the country would do well to remember citizens who fought all adversities to reach the pinnacle in their respective fields. "We will do well to recollect that acclaimed Bharatanatyam dancer Sudha Chandran, Arunima Sinha who conquered Mount Everest, prominent sports personality, H Boniface Prabhu, entrepreneur Srikanth Bolla and Dr. Satendra Singh, the founder of ‘Infinite Ability’, are some of the shining daughters and sons from a long and illustrious list of individuals in India who scaled extraordinary heights braving all adversities," said Justice Viswanathan.
He said: “The world would have been so much poorer if Homer, Milton, Mozart, Beethoven, Byron and many more would not have been allowed to realize their full potential”. “Distinguished Indian Medical Practitioner Dr. Farokh Erach Udwadia in his classic work ‘The Forgotten Art of Healing and others Essays’ under the Chapter ‘Art and Medicine’ rightly extolls their extraordinary talent, and of the many more similarly circumstanced”, said Justice Viswanathan.
The apex court gave detailed reasons for its September 18 order, which allowed a candidate Omkar Ramchandra Gond to be admitted to the MBBS course after the medical board opined that he could pursue medical education without any impediment.
The apex court’s verdict came on a plea by Gond, who challenged the Graduate Medical Education Regulation of 1997 which bars a person with equal or more than 40 percent disability from pursuing MBBS.
The apex court, in September this year, had directed the dean of a medical college to constitute a medical board to examine as to whether the speech and language disability of the petitioner would come in the way of his pursuing the MBBS course.
The apex court today held that the candidate's 44-45% disability should not be a reason to deny admission and each candidate should be evaluated individually.
The apex court said: “We have already, pursuant to our order dated September 18, 2024, in view of the favorable report dated September 13, 2024, of the Maulana Azad Medical College, granted admission to the appellant. We confirm the admission and direct the concerned authorities to treat the admission as a valid admission in the eye of law”.
