Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866 challenging the judgement dated 10-09-2024, the Division Bench of Manmohan CJ., and Tushar Rao Gedela, J.*, stated that it was apparent that in the present case, there were sufficient reasons contained in the medical opinion of the Medical Disability Board/Disability Assessment Board, the Courts might not interfere. Only when the said Medical Report lacks clarity in terms of detailed reasons, would the Court examine such Medical Reports. Thus, the Court stated that in the present case the medical opinion rendered by the Court constituted Medical Boards of AIIMS, New Delhi had sufficiently explained the reasons for concluding that the appellant was ineligible to be admitted to the MBBS Course.
Background
In the present case, the appellant had appeared for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate), 2024 Examination (‘NEET (UG) 2024’) as an SC-PwD category candidate. His disability percentage was recorded at 42% as per his Disability Certificate, which was a benchmark disability as defined under Section of the (‘RPwD Act’).
The National Testing Agency conducted the NEET (UG) 2024 on 05-05-2024 and the appellant secured 542 out of 720 marks, placing him at PwD Category Rank 176, which was well above the cut-off score. He became eligible for the next stage in the admission process, which required issuance of a Certificate of Disability from a designated Disability Certification Centre.
On 16-08-2024, the appellant approached a recognized Disability Certification Centre in New Delhi. However, despite the Centre quantifying the appellant’s disability within the permissible disability range of 40% to 80%, the said Centre concluded that the appellant was not eligible to pursue medical courses. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the writ petition, whereby the Single Judge directed formation of a Medical Board at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (‘AIIMS’) to independently assess the nature and extent of appellant’s functional disability, and to determine whether his condition meets the requirements necessary for being eligible to pursue MBBS course.
Thereafter, the Medical Board, after conducting a thorough evaluation of the appellant’s condition, submitted its report dated 06-09-2024 concluding that the appellant’s disability made him ineligible to pursue MBBS course. Based on this, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Thus, aggrieved by this the present appeal was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the appellant, who came from the deprived strata of the society, yet brilliant to the core, was unable to give wings to his dreams. There were limitations which restricted the jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts, in case the Court started substituting its own opinion, contrary or otherwise, to the one rendered by a body constituting highly experienced professionals who were experts in their line. Thus, the Court stated that it would examine the contours of the present appeal, by firstly examining the opinion rendered by the Medical Board.
The Court after carefully considering the arguments rendered by the appellant, stated that the first Medical Report dated 06-09-2024, examined all the relevant aspects and had rendered a holistic and complete medical opinion before concluding the appellant’s ineligibility. Further, regarding the Medical Report dated 30-09-2024, rendered by the reconstituted Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi, the Court stated that the said Medical Board had revisited the examination of the appellant considering the possibility of “reasonable accommodation” with assistive devices or prosthesis. Thus, the Court stated that the Medical Board had rendered a clear and cogent medical opinion concluding that the appellant was ineligible to pursue MBBS Course.
Further, contrary to the appellant’s submission that the Medical Boards so constituted did not consider the appellant’s alternating plea of pursuing MBBS Course only for teaching, the Court stated that the second Medical Board had clearly taken the said aspect into consideration prior to ruling out the alternate plea. This was clear from the observation in the Medical Report that, which stated that acquiring and demonstrating competencies in these surgical disciplines was a prerequisite for completing the Medical Undergraduate Programme.
The Court stated that it was trite that the Courts did not ordinarily interdict or substitute their own opinion over that of expert bodies. In the present case, highly qualified and experienced medical doctors were to render an opinion as to whether the appellant could or could not be eligible to complete the MBBS Course, even if the appellant was to only become a teacher. That opinion had been rendered in detail. The Court relied on Vidhi Himmat Kataria v. State of Gujarat, , and stated that the Courts were not experts in the field of medical science “to sit over decisions taken by the experts in the field and substitute it with its own wisdom”.
The Court stated that it was apparent that in the present case, there were sufficient reasons contained in the medical opinion of the Medical Disability Board/Disability Assessment Board, the Courts might not interfere. Only when the said Medical Report lacks clarity in terms of detailed reasons, would the Court examine such Medical Reports. Thus, the Court stated that in the present case the medical opinion rendered by the Court constituted Medical Boards of AIIMS, New Delhi had sufficiently explained the reasons for concluding that the appellant was ineligible to be admitted to the MBBS Course.
The Court reiterated the directions passed by the Neha Pudil v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 2815/2022 vide order dated 18-04-2022, whereby the Court directed the National Medical Commission to explore the possibility of such candidates, to be able to pursue some of the disciplines, if not all, of medical education, considering the advancement of science and technology. In this context, in the present case, the Single Judge in the impugned judgement had noted the submission of the respondent’s counsel that a that a fresh policy with regard to the directions of the Neha Pudil case (supra) had already been framed. However, the same would be applicable from the next academic year.
Thus, the Court directed those aforesaid directions to be complied with, by the respondent strictly within six months. Consequently, the appellant would be at liberty to re-apply for the admission in NEET (UG) Programme and his condition would be re-assessed based upon the newly formulated guidelines of the respondent.
[Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission, , decided on 12-11-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Rahul Bajaj, Taha Bin Tasneem, Manan Daga and Amar Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent: T. Singhdev with Abhijit Chakravarty, Yamini Singh, Anum Hussain, Aabhaas Sukhramani, Bhanu Gulati, Sourabh Kumar, Tanishq Srivastava and Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates.
The post appeared first on .