The Supreme Court of India on Friday strongly criticized the National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines that required students with specified disabilities to have “both hands intact” to be eligible for the MBBS course, calling the stipulation “completely antithetical” and a form of “ableism.” The bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan, noted that the guidelines, which specified that candidates should have “both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion,” were in direct contradiction to the principles enshrined in the Constitution, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act) of 2016.
The court expressed concern that the requirement for candidates to have “both hands intact” glorified ableism, suggesting that it unjustly elevated people with typical abilities over those with disabilities. The bench pointed out that such a classification ignored the individual capabilities of candidates and promoted the notion that those with typical abilities were superior. This approach, according to the court, undermined the spirit of equality and reasonable accommodation guaranteed under the Constitution and international agreements.
The court’s remarks came in response to an appeal against a September 2024 ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had rejected the admission of a disabled aspirant to the MBBS course. The High Court had upheld the NMC guidelines, which had deemed the aspirant ineligible due to his disability. The Supreme Court had previously ruled on December 12, 2024, directing the admission of the applicant to the Government Medical College in Sirohi, Rajasthan, under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) (OBC) category.
The Supreme Court referenced its October 2024 judgment, which had called on the NMC to issue revised guidelines for the admission of students with disabilities under the MBBS course. The court emphasized that the NMC should set up a new committee of experts to revise the regulations, as per the court’s instructions. The court has scheduled a hearing for March 3, 2025, to assess whether the revised guidelines have been formulated in compliance with its directions.
During the proceedings, the court noted that while the appellant had a 58% disability, making him eligible for the PwD quota, the rigid “both hands intact” requirement rendered him ineligible. The bench argued that this prescriptive guideline did not allow for a functional assessment of the individual candidate and failed to recognize the potential for reasonable accommodations. The court concluded that such a rule had no place in the legal framework and made a mockery of the principle of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.
