Disability Reservation in Medical Admissions: Supreme Court’s Ruling on PwD Eligibility

The case of Vidhi Himmat Katariya & Others vs. The State of Gujarat & Others revolves around the eligibility of students with disabilities for reservation in medical admissions under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) quota. The petitioners, who applied for MBBS admissions in the academic year 2019-20, challenged their disqualification under the revised eligibility criteria introduced by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in 2019. The Supreme Court’s verdict on this matter addressed key concerns regarding disability reservations, admission eligibility, and the applicability of amended regulations.

Background of the Case

The petitioners, all of whom suffered from locomotor disabilities, sought admission under the PwD quota in MBBS programs for the academic year 2019-20. Initially, the Medical Council of India’s (MCI) 2017 regulations governed the admissions process. However, on February 4, 2019, MCI issued a new notification introducing Appendix ‘H’ to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997. This amendment specified that eligibility for PwD candidates required a minimum disability of 40% but also mandated that candidates have ‘both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength, and range of motion’ to be eligible for medical courses.

The petitioners contended that their admissions should be considered under the 2017 regulations since the application process had begun in November 2018. However, they were denied admission after medical boards assessed them as ineligible under the new criteria. Their appeals to higher medical authorities, including the Medical Appellate Board and the AIIMS Medical Board, were also rejected.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners argued the following points:

• The admission process began in November 2018, and the new criteria under the February 2019 notification should not apply retroactively.
• Under the 2017 regulations, they were eligible as they had benchmark disabilities between 40-80%.
• The requirement of ‘both hands intact’ was discriminatory and unfair to candidates with locomotor disabilities.
• The principle of “rules of the game cannot be changed midway” should apply, as held in Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India (2019), where EWS reservations were not applied midway in the selection process.

Respondents’ Arguments

The State of Gujarat and the Medical Council of India opposed the petitions, arguing:

• The new eligibility criteria were formulated by an expert committee and were essential to ensuring that future doctors had adequate physical abilities to practice medicine.
• The petitioners were assessed by multiple medical boards, including AIIMS, which unanimously found them ineligible under the revised criteria.
• The eligibility date should be the time of actual admission (after NEET results), not when the application process began.
• The Supreme Court had previously upheld similar educational policies and eligibility criteria that were revised before the final admission process.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling, making several crucial observations:

“The essential eligibility criteria as per Appendix ‘H’ is required to be considered at the time when candidates seek admission, not when the application process begins.”

The Court emphasized that:

• Changes in eligibility requirements were valid if made before final admissions, as medical candidates were required to meet the latest standards.
• Expert medical boards had assessed the petitioners, and the judiciary could not override their findings in the absence of malafide intent.
• Rules could be changed before admission completion, as seen in prior cases.
• The requirement that doctors must have ‘both hands intact with sufficient strength’ was a reasonable criterion necessary for medical practice.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that:

• The revised eligibility criteria under the February 4, 2019 notification were valid and applicable.
• Since the petitioners did not meet the new physical requirements, they were rightly denied admission.
• Admission criteria must align with medical profession standards to ensure that candidates can perform essential duties as doctors.
• The ‘rules of the game’ principle did not apply as the changes were made before final admissions.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications for medical education and disability reservations:

• It reaffirms the principle that changes in admission regulations are valid if implemented before final admissions.
• It underscores the importance of physical ability requirements in professional medical training.
• It establishes that expert medical assessments take precedence over legal challenges in determining eligibility for PwD reservations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reinforces the necessity of aligning disability reservations with professional requirements in medical education. While it upholds the rights of persons with disabilities, it also ensures that only those who meet the requisite physical criteria can enter the medical profession. The verdict provides clarity on when admission regulations can be revised and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Petitioner Name: Vidhi Himmat Katariya & Others.
Respondent Name: The State of Gujarat & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.R. Gavai.
Place Of Incident: Gujarat, India.
Judgment Date: 04-10-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Vidhi Himmat Katariy vs The State of Gujarat Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-10-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category