Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India (2024)
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court said: do not reject medical aspirants with disabilities just because their disability is above a fixed percentage. Check how the person actually functions. If the disability does not stop the student from studying medicine, the student should be allowed, with reasonable support when needed.
Issues
- Can a student with a benchmark disability be auto-disqualified from medical courses only because the percentage is ≥ 40%?
- Do rigid NMC guidelines that use fixed percentages violate equality and the RPwD Act’s promise of reasonable accommodation?
Rules
RPwD Act, 2016
Calls for non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, full participation, and reasonable accommodation through individual assessment.
Constitution
Article 14 (equality) and Article 41 (education and assistance) support inclusive access to professional education.
NMC Guidelines (Appendix H-1)
Earlier used rigid cut-offs (e.g., ≥40% speech & language disability not eligible). The Court reads them liberally to align with the RPwD Act until reformed.
Facts (Timeline)
Jump
Arguments
Appellant
- Rigid percentage bars ignore real ability and violate equality.
- RPwD Act needs reasonable accommodation and individual evaluation.
- Independent Board found no functional barrier to MBBS.
Respondent / NMC
- Guidelines aim to ensure patient safety and training standards.
- Percentage thresholds were designed for uniformity across centres.
Judgment
The Court favoured functional capacity over fixed percentages. It held that numbers alone cannot exclude a candidate. Boards must check if the disability will actually hinder medical study and clinical work, and must record reasons clearly.
- Admission of the appellant confirmed as valid.
- Bombay High Court order (29 Aug 2024) set aside.
- Related writ petition disposed.
Ratio Decidendi
- Quantified disability by itself cannot bar admission; individual functional assessment is mandatory.
- Disability Boards must state, with reasons, whether the disability will hinder the course.
- Guidelines should be read in harmony with the RPwD Act to enable inclusion until reforms are made.
- Courts can send cases to premier institutes for independent opinions and review negative decisions.
Why It Matters
This case shifts the focus from labels and percentages to the person. It protects equal access to professional education, promotes assistive technologies, and pushes regulators to update rules so that capable students are not excluded by blanket bars.
Key Takeaways
- Percentages are guides, not gates.
- Assess function, record reasons, enable support.
- Read sectoral guidelines to fit the RPwD Act’s purpose.
- Courts can order fresh expert evaluations.
- Admission confirmed; High Court order set aside.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “FIT-IN” — Function first, Individual review, Thresholds not absolute — Inclusion needs reasons, New reading of rules.
- Function: Can the student do essential tasks with or without support?
- Reasons: Board must write clear findings.
- Review: Courts may seek independent expert opinion.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Are fixed disability percentages a valid ground to deny medical admission without checking actual functional ability?
Rule
RPwD Act + Article 14 → individual assessment, reasonable accommodation, no blanket exclusion.
Application
Independent Medical Board said disability will not hinder MBBS. So percentage alone should not disqualify.
Conclusion
Functional capacity decides eligibility; admission confirmed; High Court order set aside.
Glossary
| Term | Meaning (Easy English) |
|---|---|
| Benchmark Disability | Disability degree recognized by law for special rights and support. |
| Reasonable Accommodation | Practical adjustments to help a person learn or work without unfair burden. |
| Functional Assessment | Check of what a person can actually do in real tasks, not just by numbers. |
| Appendix H-1 | NMC table that earlier used fixed cut-offs for different disabilities. |
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now