A fresh take on discrimination against disabled aspirants: Supreme Court rules in favor of equal opportunities
"Alteration Required in Attitude": Supreme Court Directs Inclusion of Disabled Applicant in AIIMS Admission Process
In a significant step towards ensuring equal opportunities for disabled aspirants, the Supreme Court of India has directed the allocation of a seat to a candidate with a disability who cleared the MBBS entrance exam in 2024. This decision was made upon observing that systemic discrimination against persons with benchmark disabilities should be eliminated.
The ruling is a significant shift in the narrative, as reasonable accommodation, enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is not viewed as a matter of charity but a fundamental right. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said in its order on a plea by Kabir Paharia (often referenced in media as a disabled MBBS aspirant), who was denied admission due to his locomotor disability.
Previously, the court had directed his fresh assessment by a medical board constituted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The board concluded that Mr. Paharia demonstrated functional adaptation using his existing fingers during various tasks.
The top court ruling marked the denial of admission to the appellant in the MBBS undergraduate course as grossly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of his fundamental rights. Such actions were seen as reflecting institutional bias and systemic discrimination, undermining the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Taking note of the medical board's report, the court emphasized that the mindset must change, and this trivial aberration could not be a ground to deny admission to the appellant in the MBBS undergraduate course, as he was otherwise qualified and scored exceptionally well in the NEET-UG 2024.
The court highlighted the importance of protecting the rights and dignity of People with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) ensuring that assessment of their capabilities is individualized, evidence-based, and free from stereotypical assumptions that have no scientific foundation.
Under the 2016 Act, persons with benchmark disabilities are defined as those with a disability of 40% or more as certified by a recognized medical authority. The court stated that the constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that PwD and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities.
Given that the 2024-2025 academic session had progressed significantly, the court directed that the appellant would be allocated a seat in the MBBS UG course 2025 against the Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the All-India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, in the forthcoming academic session.
In addition, the court directed the National Medical Commission to complete the process of revising the guidelines for admission to the MBBS course within two months so that no deserving candidate in the PwBD category is denied admission into the MBBS course in spite of their entitlement.
The legal battle was fought by advocates Rahul Bajaj and Amar Jain, both persons with benchmark disability (zero vision), on behalf of the petitioner. The court's decision marks a landmark victory for disabled aspirants in India, setting a strong precedent for equal opportunities in professional education and paving the way for further progress in removing systemic discrimination against persons with disabilities.
The court urged the elimination of systemic discrimination against persons with benchmark disabilities, whether direct or indirect, and uphold their right to equal opportunity and dignity. The constitutional promise of equality is not merely formal but substantive, requiring the State to take affirmative measures to ensure that PwD and PwBD can meaningfully participate in all spheres of life, including professional education. The court emphasized that reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Mr. Paharia had excelled academically, clearing class X with 91.5% and class XII with 90% marks without any assistance to write the exams, and scored 542 out of 720 in NEET. Despite the obstacles he faced due to his disability, which was described as "congenital absence of multiple fingers in both hands as well as involvement of left foot (2nd and 3rd toe), the extent whereof has been assessed at 42%."
- This significant court ruling in favor of Kabir Paharia, a disabled MBBS aspirant, underscores the importance of equal opportunities in the realm of science, health-and-wellness, and education-and-self-development, particularly for individuals with mental-health issues or disabilities.
- The court's decision to ensure that Kabir Paharia is allocated a seat in the MBBS undergraduate course against the Scheduled Castes Person with Benchmark Disabilities quota signifies a crucial step towards personal-growth and learning for individuals with disabilities, promoting a culture that values inclusivity and individual abilities.
- The emphasis placed by the court on the importance of protecting the rights of People with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) extends beyond the sphere of science and medicine, encouraging a holistic approach to health-and-wellness, education-and-self-development, and mental-health, ensuring equal opportunities for all.
