The Supreme Court of India, on September 28, 2024, held that blanket disability percentage thresholds imposed by the National Medical Commission as grounds for disqualifying candidates from medical and educational admissions are ultra vires the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ruled that quantified disability alone cannot disqualify benchmark disabled candidates and directed that medical boards conduct individualized functional capacity assessments for each applicant.
Background
The petitioner, a candidate with benchmark disability, had been denied admission to a medical course on the ground that his disability exceeded the percentage threshold prescribed in the NMC's regulations governing fitness for medical education. The NMC regulations stipulated specific disability percentage limits, above which candidates were automatically deemed unfit for admission regardless of their actual ability to perform clinical tasks.
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 introduced the concept of "benchmark disability" — a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability — and mandated reservation in higher educational institutions for such persons. Section 32 of the RPwD Act requires all government and government-aided educational institutions to reserve not less than five per cent of seats for persons with benchmark disability. The tension between the NMC's blanket percentage disqualification and the RPwD Act's inclusive mandate formed the core of the legal challenge.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court delivered the following rulings:
Blanket disqualification is ultra vires: NMC regulations imposing automatic disqualification based on a specified disability percentage contravene the RPwD Act, 2016. The Act requires an inclusive approach that assesses functional capacity rather than applying numerical thresholds as absolute bars.
Individualized assessment mandatory: Medical boards evaluating candidates with disabilities for admission to medical and educational courses must conduct case-by-case functional capacity assessments. The assessment must evaluate whether the candidate can, with or without reasonable accommodation, perform the essential functions required for the course of study and subsequent professional practice.
Reasonable accommodation obligation: Educational institutions and regulatory bodies are required to consider reasonable accommodations that may enable a disabled candidate to participate in the educational programme. The failure to consider accommodations before disqualifying a candidate renders the disqualification arbitrary.
NMC directed to revise regulations: The Court directed the NMC to revise its regulations to bring them into conformity with the RPwD Act, replacing blanket percentage disqualifications with a functional capacity-based evaluation framework that accommodates the individual circumstances of each candidate.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment has significant implications for disability rights litigation across all professional education sectors, not merely medicine. Practitioners representing disabled candidates in admission disputes should invoke this ruling to challenge any blanket percentage-based exclusion imposed by regulatory bodies governing engineering, law, architecture, or other professional courses.
For medical institutions and regulatory bodies, the practical challenge lies in designing and implementing individualized functional assessment protocols. These assessments must be evidence-based, consistently applied, and documented to withstand judicial scrutiny. Institutions should engage occupational therapists and disability specialists in developing assessment frameworks that evaluate actual functional capacity rather than relying on disability certificates alone.
The reasonable accommodation element is particularly important. Practitioners should be prepared to present specific accommodation proposals — such as modified clinical equipment, extended examination time, or adapted workspace arrangements — as part of admission proceedings. The Court's emphasis on accommodation shifts the burden from the candidate to demonstrate fitness despite disability, to the institution to demonstrate that no reasonable accommodation can enable participation.