'Being Blind Can't Destroy Dreams': Rajasthan High Court Forms Panel To Help MBBS Student Who Lost Vision After 2 Years To Finish Course

The Rajasthan High Court constituted an expert committee at AIIMS Delhi to examine an MBBS student who became blind after completing 2 years of the course, and recommend appropriate modalities and methodologies to enable her to complete the course. 

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that there were multiple people, in India and overseas, who became successful doctors despite visual impairment. It referred to Right of Persons with Disabilities Act and said that while framing the guidelines, Doctors with disabilities ought to have been considered. 

“The competency of a Doctor with disability cannot be assumed, as unless it is experienced one may not understand the same.If a person with visual impairment is already a Doctor, it shall be possible for a blind person to be a Doctor. It seems to be a difficult struggle for these blind men to achieve what they want. Being blind need not destroy one's dreams.”

The court further lauded the petitioner in her pursuit of becoming a Doctor and said:

"The petitioner's courage and resilience in overcoming the challenges serve as an inspiration. This Court believes that she will excel in her endeavours and emerge with flying colours. With the assistance, accommodation and support from the respondents, the petitioner will be able to overcome the challenges, achieve her dreams and make a meaningful contribution to the society".

The petitioner had qualified NEET and was studying MBBS. After completing two years of the degree, she met with an accident that rendered her completely blind. Under these circumstances, a medical board constituted by the State opined that if she was permitted to continue the degree, she won't be able to discharge duties as a doctor effectively.

She moved court seeking directions to the State to let her complete her degree, and to take appropriate and effective steps to assist her in accordance with the existing provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

She had also submitted an affidavit, that after completion of her degree, she won't be practicing as a medical practitioner.

This was opposed by the State on the ground of Regulations on Graduate Medical Examination, 1997 issued by Medical Council of India (“MCI”). The regulation provided a detailed mechanism to complete the MBBS course that necessarily included performing surgeries and practical training.

It was submitted that a 100% visually impaired person would not be able to pass the practical subjects. Furthermore, it was argued that under the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019, a candidate with less than 40% visual disability was not eligible for admission in MBBS course.

After hearing the contentions, and underscoring provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the Act) & the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities, (“UN Convention”), the Court opined that the guidelines issued by the MCI were unfair, discriminatory and unlawful.

“The Preamble of the PWD Act does not permit any deviation From the Act. While framing the guidelines, Doctors with disabilities ought to have been considered.”

Furthermore, the Court referred to certain Supreme Court precedents, and highlighted that, “In the above noted case, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted admission in the MBBS Course to a candidate, suffering from 80% locomotive disability and issued several directions, including the direction to NMC to issue fresh guidelines for admitting a person suffering from more than 40% disability in MBBS Course”.

Taking example of Dr. Y.G. Parameshwara, who was first blind doctor from Karnataka University as well as Mr. Anka Toppo who faced similar situation like the petitioner for whom a committee of experts was constituted by the NHRC, the Court directed similar experts committee to be constituted for the petitioner.

The State as well as the Director, AIIMS Delhi and the Commissioner, PWD Institute for the Physically Handicapped, Delhi were directed to suggest appropriate modalities and methods to enable the petitioner to pursue her studies. The court directed AIIMS Delhi Director and Commissioner, Persons with Disabilities Institute for the Physically Handicapped, Delhi to carry out the necessary exercise within 3 months.

It was directed that in case the Expert committee opined in favour of the petitioner, the State was directed to permit the petitioner to pursue her degree.

Finally, depsite the affidavit submitted by the petitioner, of not being a medical practitioner after completing degree, the Court left it open for the authorities to decide based on her overall performance.

The Court highlighted that the order was limited to the peculiar situation where the petitioner went blind during the course, and shall not be treated as precedent for candidate with more than 40% blindness seeking to qualify NEET for admission in MBBS courses.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Title: Ankita Singodia v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 272

Click Here To Read/Download Order