'Reasonable Accommodation Not Charity But Fundamental Right' : Supreme Allows AIIMS Admission For Candidate With Disability

The Supreme Court recently passed an order directing an allotment of a seat in the MBBS UG Course 2025-26 against the 'Scheduled Castes Persons with Benchmark Disability' quota in the All-India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, for a candidate suffering from congenital absence of multiple fingers in both hands as well as the involvement of left foot.

"Manifestly, in view of the observations made by us in the order dated 2nd April, 2025 and the consequent successful assessment of the appellant by the Medical Board, AIIMS, New Delhi vide report dated 24th April, 2025, the denial of admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG course was grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the appellant's fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such action not only reflects institutional bias and systemic discrimination but also undermines the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination enshrined in our constitutional framework. The constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that person with disabilities (for short 'PwD') and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities."

The Appellant appeared for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) UG 2024 examination in the category of SC/PwBD candidate and secured a category rank of 176. He applied for the issuance of a disability certificate, however, he was found to be ineligible under the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines. 

The petitioner had approached the Delhi High Court, which constituted a three-member Board to assess the petitioner's disability. It was concluded that the petitioner was ineligible. Subsequently, a letter patent appeal was filed before the division bench, which also constituted a fresh medical board and accordingly dismissed the appeal after the board reiterated the petitioner's ineligibility. Against this order is the present SLP.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta had passed an order on April 8 for the assessment of the Appellant for the fourth time. The bench followed the Court's judgment in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Sciences (2024) and Anmol v. Union of India & Ors (2025), wherein it was held that the mere existence of benchmark disability will not lead to disqualification in the MBBS Course. In Anmol's case particularly, the National Medical Commission's condition that candidates with disabilities must have "both hands intact, with intact sensation and sufficient strength" for admission to MBBS course was held to be arbitrary and antithetical to the Constitution

The report submitted by a Medical Board of five members observed that the Appellant demonstrated functional adaptation using his existing digits. The only minor challenge faced during the entire procedure was putting on the sterilized standard gloves. 

Taking into account the report, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed: "We feel that the mindset must change and this trivial aberration, by no stretch of imagination, can be a ground to deny admission to the appellant in the MBBS UG course, when he is otherwise qualified and scored exceeding high rank in the NEET-UG 2024."

Further, the Court found that a candidate with lesser marks was allocated a seat at AIIMS, New Delhi under the Scheduled Castes PwBD category, for which the Appellant had a valid claim.  The Court stated that since the 2024-25 academic session has already progressed, the Appellant may be accommodated in the forthcoming academic year. It added that the Appellant should not be required to appear for the NEET-UG 2025 examination again. 

The Court has also directed the NMC to revise the guidelines not later than a period of 2 months and before the counselling session for the 2025-26 session begins in light of the Om Rathod and Anmol judgments. 

"It must be ensured that systemic discrimination against persons with benchmark disabilities, whether direct or indirect, is eliminated and that the admission process upholds 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. We emphasize that reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of our Constitution."

When administrative authorities create arbitrary barriers that exclude qualified PwBD candidates, they not only violate statutory provisions but also perpetuate the historical injustice and stigmatization, the Court added. 

It concluded: " The fundamental rights and the dignity of PwD and PwBD candidates must be protected by ensuring that assessment of their capabilities is individualised, evidence-based, and free from stereotypical assumptions that have no scientific foundation."