OM RATHOD versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES & ORS.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2187, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2187 : 2024 INSC 836
Om Rathod 
v. 
The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 12110 of 2024)
25 October 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI,  
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant had lower limb myopathy, a locomotor disability. He secured 
an all India PwD rank of 84 and a State PwD rank of 4 in NEET UG 
Examination 2024. However, was held ineligible to pursue MBBS 
course by the designated Medical Board at AIIMS, Nagpur holding 
that the appellant was 88% disabled which was higher than the 
maximum permissible disability fixed by the regulation governing 
admission in the PWD category for MBBS course. By way of the 
impugned judgment, High Court held that the certification of the 
degree of disability was in accordance with prescribed procedures.
Headnotes†
Education/Educational Courses – MBBS course – NEET UG 
Examination 2024 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 
2016 – As per the Guidelines for admission of students with 
‘Specified Disabilities’ under the 2016 Act w.r.t admission 
in MBBS Course, persons having over 80% locomotor 
disabilities may be admitted to a medical course on a case 
to case basis after assessing their functional competence 
to navigate academic and practical requirements – Vide 
NEET Disability Certificate dtd. 13.08.24, Medical board at 
AIIMS, Nagpur assessed the appellant’s disability to be 88% 
and therefore, held the appellant ineligible to pursue MBBS
course – Writ petition filed by appellant, dismissed by High 
Court – Challenged – Supreme Court directed re-assessment 
of the appellant by Medical Board at AIIMS, Delhi which 
concurred with the AIIMS Nagpur Medical Board – However, 
the Board noted lack of clear guidelines to assess disability 
with assistive devices in terms of the guidelines – Direction 
for re-assessment of the appellant for a functional competency 
test – Appellant was assessed to be eligible for pursuing the 
*Author
2188
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
MBBS course with assistive devices – Permitted to participate 
in the ongoing counselling – Appellant sought seat at the 
college allocated in the initial rounds of counselling or at any 
college in his home State-Maharashtra:
Held: Appellant was subjected to protracted and mentally exhausting 
assessments that failed to apply the correct standards, leading to 
a declaration of ineligibility – Report dtd. 13.08.24 of the Disability 
Assessment Board of AIIMS, Nagpur quashed as it did not apply 
the statutory and regulatory standards applicable to the assessment 
of a person with disability– Impugned judgment of High Court set 
aside – A supernumerary seat be created at the AIIMS, Nagpur and 
allocated to the appellant if he has not already secured a seat at a 
college of his choosing – College be given the report dtd.20.10.24 
which makes suggestions as to the accommodations which may be 
extended to the appellant – Judgement to apply in rem. [Paras 32, 59]
Directions by Supreme Court – Admission to persons with 
disabilities into medical courses – Formulation of guidelines – 
Inclusion of persons with disability in the medical profession – 
Constitution of India – Preamble; Articles 21, 19, 14, 15 – 
Preambular virtue of fraternity; Right to life, dignity, freedom, 
equality and non-discrimination:
Held: National Medical Council to issue fresh guidelines for admitting 
persons with disabilities into medical courses – The
committee 
formulating the guidelines must include experts with disability or 
persons who have worked on disability justice – The guidelines 
shall comply with the judgments of this Court and contemporary 
advancements in disability justice – The Disability Assessment 
Boards shall eschew from a benchmark model to test the functional 
competence of medical aspirants with disability  – The second 
respondent shall issue appropriate guidelines in this regard – The 
Disability Assessment Boards shall include a doctor or health 
professional with disability as per the directions of the first respondent 
dated 24 March 2022 – Conduct of the Disability Assessment 
Boards shall be fair, transparent and in compliance with principles 
of the rule of law – Attention must be paid to ensure that candidates 
appearing before the Board do not feel uncomfortable on account 
of physical or attitudinal barriers – Reasonable accommodation is 
a gateway right to avail all other fundamental, human and legal 
rights for persons with disabilities – Non-availability of reasonable 
accommodation amounts to discrimination and violates substantive 
equality of persons with disabilities – The inclusion of persons with 
disability in the medical profession would enhance the quality of
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2189
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
healthcare and meet the preambular virtue of fraternity and the 
guarantees in Articles 21, 19, 14 and 15 of the Constitution – 
Applicants to the NEET examination must be informed about the 
compliance of accessibility norms and provisions of reasonable 
accommodation available at colleges – The respondents shall issue 
appropriate directions to create a database with relevant information 
on accessibility and reasonable accommodation – Enabling Units 
at medical colleges shall act as points of contact for persons with 
disability desirous of accessing clinical accommodations. [Para 60]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Shift from 
charity based to a rights based approach – Scheme of the 
Act – Discussed – Appendix "H-1" of the Guidelines regarding 
admission of students with ‘Specified Disabilities’ under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with respect to 
admission in MBBS Course – Purposive interpretation of – 
Fair assessment of competence – Principle of reasonable 
accommodation – Functional competency test – Purpose 
stated – Constitution of India – Articles 21, 19, 14, 15 – Right 
to life, dignity, freedom, equality and non-discrimination.
Disability Assessment Boards – Role; approach – Stated.
Case Law Cited
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine 
SC 2860; Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures [2024] 7 SCR 246 : 
2024 INSC 465; Ravinder Kumar
Dhariwal v. Union of India [2021] 
13 SCR 823 : (2023) 2 SCC 209; Vikash Kumar v. UPSC [2021] 
12 SCR 311 : (2021) 5 SCC 370; Avni Prakash v. NTA [2021] 
11 SCR 891  : (2023) 2 SCC 286; A (Mother of X) v. State of 
Maharashtra [2024] 5 SCR 470 : 2024 INSC 371; Bambhaniya 
Sagar Vashrambhai v. Union of India WP (C) 856 of 2023; Purswani 
Ashutosh v. Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 422; Omkar Gond v. 
Union of India (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2401; Vidhi Himmat 
Katariya v. Union of India [2019] 12 SCR 821 : (2019) 10 SCC 
20; Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 454 : 
(1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217; Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India 
[2020] 2 SCR 727 : (2020) 4 SCC 727 – referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Judith Heumann & Kristen Joiner (2020). Being Heumann: An 
Unrepentant Memoir of a Disability Rights Activist. Beacon Press : 
Boston, Massachusetts; Singh S, Medical Council of India’s new
2190
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
guidelines on admission of persons with specified disabilities: Unfair, 
discriminatory and unlawful. Indian J Med Ethics. 2019 Jan-Mar; 
4(1) NS: 29-34. DOI: 10.20529/IJME.2018.064; UN. Committee 
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (22nd sess). CRPD/C/
IND/CO/1. Concluding observations on the initial report of India : 
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Geneva : 
UN, 29 Oct. 2019 – referred to.
List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 
List of Keywords
MBBS course; NEET UG Examination 2024; Medical aspirant; 
Disability; Locomotor disability; Muscular Dystrophy; PwD category; 
Persons with Disability; National Medical Council; Medical Board 
at AIIMS; AIIMS, Nagpur; AIIMS, Delhi; Disability assessments; 
Maximum permissible disability; Guidelines for admission of 
students with ‘Specified Disabilities’; Functional competence to 
navigate academic and practical requirements; NEET Disability 
Certificate; Assistive devices; Ongoing counselling; Disability 
Assessment Board; Doctor or health professional with disability; 
Functional competency test; Functional disability; Quantified 
disability; Functional assessment; Disability law in India; Shift 
from charity based to a rights based approach; Reasonable 
accommodation; Fundamental rights; Preamble; Justice, liberty 
and equality, fraternity; Disability rights; Convention on Rights of 
Persons with Disability; Eradication of
discrimination; Transparency, 
fairness and consistency; Supernumerary seat; Inaccessibility; 
Non-inclusion.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12110 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2024 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in WPC No. 4918 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv., Talha Abdul Rahman, M Shaz Khan, 
Taha Bin Tasneem, Sudhanshu Tewari, Rafid Akhter, Faizan Ahmad, 
Prannv Dhawan, Advs. for the Appellant.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2191
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Gaurav Sharma, Sr. Adv., 
Shashank Bajpai, Ms. Sushma Verma, Karunesh Kumar Shukla, 
Gopi Chand, Amrish Kumar, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, 
Paranjay Tripathi, Rajesh Raj, Ms. Ankita Dogra, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Table of Contents*
A.
Background........................................................................
3
B.
Pillar to post: scaling the ramparts of courts and 
hospitals..............................................................................
5
C.
The maze to inclusion: RPWD Act and guidelines............... 15
D.
Principle of fair assessment of competence: reasonable 
accommodation and the functional competence 
model................................................................................... 19
E.
Building bridges for the nation: principle to practice......... 31
F.
Conclusions........................................................................ 42
The Stage
We didn’t go up to the stage 
no one asked us, actually 
only by pointing fingers 
they showed us our place 
and we sat there; 
‘great’, they exclaimed. 
And they went up on the stage 
started narrating us our own sorrows 
but, ‘our sorrows remained ours 
never became theirs…’
– Waharu Sonavane1
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
2192
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
A.	
Background
1.	
Legal principles and their application often stand at opposite banks 
of the river. The distance between them is manifest before us. The 
appellant has undergone a crash course in navigating the Indian 
legal system - from statutory prescriptions, regulatory stipulations, 
High Court adjudication, regulatory and court ordered disability 
assessments to the race to justice before this Court. Four assessments 
later - the appellant’s fate now hangs in the balance and this 
Court is asked to interfere to ensure that the balance does not tilt 
unfavourably and fall into disarray. Vital foundational questions have 
been thrown open for debate before this Court. What is expected of 
an Indian medical graduate? Can a person with disability aspire to 
meet these expectations? Or is their only option to resign their fate 
to a society that places a premium on disabled bodies - every step 
of the way? Academic and practical rigour of the medical profession 
notwithstanding, should the journey of an Indian to navigate their 
way into the medical profession be this arduous? Is our collective 
obsession with disability too strong to focus on a person’s ability? 
Is our nation ready to benefit from the talent and experiences of 
persons with disabilities? Or should we continue to sacrifice them 
at the altar of technicalities?
2.	
We answer these questions by rooting them in the web of 
Constitutional law principles,
statute, regulatory framework and 
guidelines which are germane for this case. The bone of contention 
before us turns on the manner in which the Disability Assessment 
Boards must function while certifying the eligibility of a candidate 
for the MBBS course. The appellant has lower limb myopathy - 
a locomotor disability. The appellant has been an academic 
success. He secured an A1 grade in his matriculate (Class X) and 
intermediary (Class XII) examination held by the Central Board 
of Secondary Education. He aspires, now, to enter the medical 
profession. With this resolve, the appellant appeared for the NEET 
UG Examination 2024 on 5 May 2024 under the unreserved/
EWS-PwD category and secured 601 marks (out of a total marks 
of 720). This placed the appellant at an all India PwD rank of 84 
and a State PwD rank of 4. Despite having a Disability Certificate 
1	
Poem translated from its original version in Marathi – written in the context of the tribal movement being 
co-opted by persons who claim to speak on their behalf while simultaneously othering them.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2193
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
dated 24 January 2021 which was to be valid until 2025  – the 
appellant submitted himself to the mandatory assessment to get 
his eligibility certified by a designated medical board at AIIMS, 
Nagpur. Appendix “H-1” of the Guidelines regarding admission of 
students with ‘Specified Disabilities’ under the Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities Act, 2016 with respect to admission in MBBS Course 
prescribes that persons having over eighty percent disability may 
be admitted to a medical course on a case by case basis after 
assessing their functional competence to navigate academic and 
practical requirements.
3.	
The medical board at AIIMS, Nagpur comprised of an Associate 
Professor in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; an Assistant 
Professor of Orthopaedics; and a Professor who was the Chairman 
of the Disability Board at AIIMS, Nagpur. The Board, by a NEET 
Disability Certificate dated 13 August 2024, opined that the appellant 
is 88% disabled and is therefore ineligible to pursue an MBBS/
Dental course. 
B.	
Pillar to post: scaling the ramparts of courts and hospitals
4.	
Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 
of the Constitution before the Nagpur bench of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay, challenging the NEET Disability Certificate 
issued by AIIMS, Nagpur. The High Court by the impugned judgment 
dated 3 September 2024 dismissed the writ
petition and held that 
the certification of the degree of disability was in accordance with 
prescribed procedures. The appellant challenged the impugned 
judgment by a petition for special leave before this Court under 
Article 136 of the Constitution.
5.	
On 3 October 2024, this Court directed the appellant to appear 
before a medical board at AIIMS, Delhi to reassess him keeping in 
mind the circular issued by the first respondent on 24 March 2022. 
The circular inter alia made mandatory directions to include a doctor 
or health professional with disability in every Disability Assessment 
Board. The appellant accordingly reported to AIIMS, Delhi at 11 AM 
on 5 October 2024. The five member board submitted its report 
dated 9 October 2024 inter alia finding that there were no changes 
in most disability components despite assistive devices. The report 
also stated that there are no clear guidelines available to assess 
the disability with assistive devices. The report states as follows:
2194
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“The candidate was re-assessed with the assistive device 
(single hand crutch & motorised scooty). There was minimal 
to no change in most of the components for disability 
evaluation as per the GOI gazette (March 2024) with these 
assistive devices. The possibility of wheelchair usage was 
also explored which might be required for better efficiency 
in ambulation component in near future. However, there 
are no clear guidelines available to assess the disability 
with assistive devices as per the Govt. of India gazette 
guideline. Further it is to be noted that safety, efficiency 
and agility of movements are needed to independently use 
the devices and many times some manual support is also 
required which may not be available to the candidate at 
all times and may affect the safety of the candidate and 
the patients during the skills based training provided in the 
various setups in the labs and hospitals during the MBBS 
course training. The Board after careful evaluations of 
all possibilities concurs with the opinion of the previous 
medical board held at AIIMS Nagpur dated 13.08.2024 
that the disability is above 80% even with consideration of 
assistive devices and also both upper limbs have significant 
involvement and hence the candidate is ineligible to pursue 
MBBS course.”
6.	
The appellant in his affidavit countering the AIIMS, Delhi report has 
elucidated his experience. He submits that he was made to wait
for 
long hours on each date when he was asked to appear. He was not 
given clear directions or information about the steps to follow in his 
assessment. The first stage of the examination was conducted by 
an able bodied doctor from the PMR department who was unduly 
focused on the medical condition of the appellant. He underwent a 
large number of tests including climbing stairs and power assessment. 
When the appellant informed the Board that he used (i) a wheelchair, 
(ii) crutches, and (iii) an electric scooter for mobility, he was asked 
why he did not bring his wheelchair. To this, the appellant stated that 
bringing a wheelchair was not logistically possible given that he had 
travelled from his place of residence at Washim in Maharashtra to 
Delhi by air, on short notice. 
7.	
The Board did not ask him any questions which would allow the 
appellant to counter the basis for the Board’s findings. He was
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2195
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
only asked (i) if he would be able to undertake his professional 
duties and (ii) if he could conduct his daily activities. He responded 
positively to both and stated that he had already completed his 
secondary education with the same disability and had managed 
to navigate adequately thus far. Eventually, the AIIMS, Delhi 
report dated 9 October 2024 fell into the error of being a mere 
benchmark evaluation report. The report adjudged the disability of 
the appellant to be 80% - down from 88% which was reported by 
AIIMS, Nagpur on 13 August 2024. While the AIIMS, Nagpur report 
did not evaluate the appellant with assistive devices to assess his 
functional ability, the AIIMS Delhi report did use these devices but 
ultimately opined that there were no government guidelines on the 
use of such devices. 
8.	
By an order dated 18 October 2024, this Court noted the statement 
of AIIMS, Delhi on the lack of clear guidelines and observed that the 
AIIMS report failed to evaluate the (i) extent of functional disability 
of the appellant; and (ii) the extent to which the use of assistive 
devices would have the potential to bring the functional disability 
within the permissible limits in terms of the government notification. 
9.	
Relying on the judgment of this Court in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. 
Union of India,2 we requested Dr Satendra Singh of Infinity Ability to 
assist the Court on whether
notwithstanding the quantified disability, 
the appellant can pursue the MBBS degree course. In arriving at 
his evaluation, Dr Satendra Singh was requested to examine the 
appellant and to have due regard to such assistive devises and 
their potential to assist the appellant to fulfil the requirements of the 
degree course in medicine.
10.	 The appellant made himself available at the University College of 
Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, University of Delhi 
at 10 AM on 19 October 2024. He was made to undergo functional 
assessment and was asked to demonstrate his competence at the 
Medical Simulation Centre at the Physiology and Pathology central 
lab. Dr Satendra Singh gauged the accommodations necessary for 
the appellant by interacting with him to understand his limitations 
and barriers. Accordingly, the following premises were established 
in assessing the appellant:
2	
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860.
2196
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“Disability: Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy (mobility-
related physical disability)
Potential Functional limitations: Inability to stand for long 
hours; difficulty in standing suddenly from sitting position
Potential Barriers to learning: Lack of accessible spaces
What is being assessed: Cognitive, psychomotor and 
affective skills and ability to arrive at a diagnosis using 
patient history and examination in line with NMC’s five 
roles of an Indian Medical Graduate in CBME
Appropriate and reasonable accommodation: Given 
the tight space of clinical environments, smaller/compact 
scooters are a good choice which Om is already using. This 
will allow him to continue with the pace and demands of 
a busy ward/OPD/OT independently and is much superior 
than a manual wheelchair which is often dependent on 
human assistance.”
11.	 Dr Satendra Singh submitted his report on 20 October 2024. 
This Court duly furnished the report to the second respondent, 
National Medical Council, on 21 October 2024 to enable them to 
formulate their response. The report by Dr Satendra Singh outlined 
the functional disability of the appellant to be an inability to stand 
independently which may prove limiting in clinical rotations in 
surgical settings. The report suggested solutions to enable the 
appellant in such cases. The report further suggested clinical 
accommodations for the appellant to reduce the barriers he may 
encounter. The report
determined the accommodations necessary 
for the appellant to be reasonable and in compliance with existing 
norms. The report formulated four questions and answered them 
as follows:
"a)	 Would the proposed accommodation result in a failure 
to meet the NMC CBME’s inherent requirements? 
Not in my opinion
b)	
Would the accommodation legitimately jeopardize 
patient safety? Not in my opinion
c)	
Would the proposed accommodation result in the 
improper waiver of a core requirement of the CBME? 
Not in my opinion
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2197
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
d)	
Would the proposed accommodation pose an undue 
hardship on the medical college (budgets wise)? Not 
in my opinion”
12.	 In stark contrast to the approach of the two AIIMS reports, when Dr 
Satendra Singh assessed the appellant on the request of this Court, 
he carried out a functional assessment. The process to determine 
the clinical accommodation for the appellant involved having a 
frank conversation with him about the barriers he faces - physical, 
educational and attitudinal. The approach adopted was not whether 
the appellant would succeed in a medical college but was rather 
to ensure that the appellant has equal opportunity and can start at 
the same level playing field as his classmates. After determining 
the accommodations needed by the appellant through an interview 
process, some questions were posed to him. These questions were 
as follows:
"i.	
How does muscular dystrophy impact you in daily life?
ii.	
How have you mitigated this impact in an educational 
setting (Class X,XII)?
iii.	
What, if anything, exacerbates or worsens your 
disability?
iv.	
Do you anticipate needing to receive treatment such 
that you may need to “step out” of the curriculum 
at some point to attend to disability-related needs?
v.	
Have you ever seen a clinical setting, or do you 
anticipate additional barriers during the clinical 
portion of your MBBS? (prompted with example 
competencies)
vi.
Have you reviewed the MBBS curriculum? If not, we 
can do this together to identify any potential barriers.
vii.	 Have you ever used assistive technology to mitigate 
the impact of your disability?
viii.	 Are you aware of adaptive equipment used to navigate 
the clinical environment.
ix.	
What are your biggest concerns about entering the 
MBBS program?
2198
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
x.	
What is your understanding of reasonable 
accommodation which you repeatedly mentioned in 
your affidavit.” 
13.	 Based on the preliminary conversation, the report noted that the 
appellant is concerned about the differential treatment which was 
meted out to him by previous Disability Assessment Boards despite 
him having successfully navigated with the disability for his entire 
life. The appellant was surprised that he was being doubted and his 
accomplishments questioned without being afforded an opportunity 
with simulation labs and reasonable accommodations. 
14.	 The appellant was then made to undergo a functional assessment 
which included being given various instruments which he would be 
required to use in his course and profession. The nature of the tasks 
given to the appellant shows that they were done in progression, with 
basic instruments being given first, followed by the use of assistive 
devices to examine his abilities and then being tested in other, more 
complex tasks. The report states as follows:
“1.4 Functional assessment: Om was first shown how to 
record blood pressure using a mercury sphygmomanometer, 
how to elicit reflexes, and how to use a tuning fork to check 
for deafness. He was then asked to demonstrate these 
skills, which he successfully did, showing his eagerness 
to learn after just one demonstration. Next, he was given 
a foldable crutch to test whether it could assist him in
standing from a seated position, but I observed that he 
has developed his own coping mechanisms to navigate 
physical barriers. This is often an innovative strategy used 
by people with disabilities in environments that are not 
fully accessible.
He was then taken to the laboratory and asked to 
reach examination tables of three different heights. He 
was able to access two of them, demonstrating that an 
adjustable examination table would be a suitable clinical 
accommodation for him.
Afterward, he was taken to our Medical Simulation Centre, 
where he was shown how to perform Cardiopulmonary 
Resuscitation (CPR) in a simulated real-life scenario
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2199
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
of a person lying on the floor after a heart attack. After 
the demonstration, Om sat down on the floor to perform 
CPR. Considering it was his first experience in such 
a lab (his previous two assessments did not involve 
simulation), and to make the situation less intimidating, 
he was first guided on a baby mannequin, which he 
successfully managed. He also succeeded in giving an 
intravenous and intramuscular deltoid injection, as well 
as inserting a cannula after a demonstration. Please find 
some pictures below.
For Om, who uses a mobility scooter, the functional 
limitation lies in his inability to stand independently. This 
may pose a challenge during clinical rotations in surgical 
settings, where he would need to be at standing height to 
observe procedures. Potential solutions could include using 
a standing or hydraulic wheelchair, providing remote visual 
access to the surgery via a monitor, or arranging for all 
parties to sit during minor surgeries. These accommodations 
can help mitigate barriers without imposing undue burden 
The disability access appointee or Coordinator of the 
Enabling Unit or Equal Opportunity Cell (as mandated 
by the UGC) at Om’s future medical college should 
interact with him to propose these accommodations on 
an individual basis before the preclinical, paraclinical, and 
clinical rotations begin.”
15.	 The report thereafter gave detailed (but not
exhaustive) suggestions 
for clinical accommodations for the appellant during his course - for 
each of the years of his education and the mandatory internship. The 
report finally outlined the overall assessment of the appellant and 
declared him to be suitable, with appropriate clinical accommodations, 
to pursue MBBS. The section of the report on overall assessment 
reads as follows:
“4. Overall assessment
4.1 Throughout the assessment, Om’s diagnosed muscular 
dystrophy has not interfered with his learning or self-care. 
He quickly adapted to new situations and found interesting 
and unique ways to complete tasks in unfamiliar settings. 
For example, while initially unfamiliar with the full extent of
2200
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the physical skills required in the MBBS program during the 
simulation lab experience, Om expressed confidence that 
these barriers could be easily mitigated using his existing 
compensatory skills and creative approaches to procedures.
As an 18-year-old who flew on an airplane for the first 
time while traveling for reassessment in Delhi, Om showed 
remarkable zeal and passion for becoming a doctor and 
is suitable with appropriate clinical accommodations 
to pursue MBBS.
Om should be given opportunities to demonstrate how he 
can successfully navigate clinical environments. Students 
with disabilities should be “Welcomed and Valued,” as 
demonstrated by the General Medical Council UK’s 
guidelines on reasonable accommodation (GMC, UK). The 
NMC should consider implementing similar regulations 
to guide faculty and minimize attitudinal barriers rooted 
in the medical model of disability. In the post-RPDA 
(Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act) era, with the 
advent of technology, we must welcome and recognize 
the competence of students with disabilities.
4.2 Progressive Disability – Is It a Concern?
Such concerns fall into the realm of ableism. It is “a system 
of assigning value to people’s bodies and minds based 
on societally constructed ideas of normalcy, productivity, 
desirability, intelligence, excellence, and fitness. These 
constructed ideas are deeply rooted in eugenics, anti-
Blackness, misogyny,
colonialism, imperialism, and 
capitalism. This systemic oppression that leads to people 
and society determining people’s value based on their 
culture, age, language, appearance, religion, birth or living 
place, “health/wellness”, and/or their ability to satisfactorily 
re/produce, “excel” and “behave.” You do not have to be 
disabled to experience ableism” (Lewis, 2022). 
In Iyer Seetharaman Venugopalan vs. Union of 
India, the Bombay High Court initially denied an MD in 
Psychiatry to a blind doctor who had retinitis pigmentosa 
and progressively lost his vision. However, thanks to the 
intervention of the Supreme Court under Hon’ble CJI,
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2201
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
he was allowed to pursue Psychiatry and is now in his 
final year, doing successfully. Similarly, Dr. Sharad Philip, 
who also experienced progressive vision loss, successfully 
completed his MD in Psychiatry from NIMHANS Bangalore 
and is now a faculty member at AIIMS Guwahati.
Om can similarly choose to either remain a general 
MBBS doctor or pursue a specialty that is less physically 
demanding. Only he is best placed to take this decision 
after completing MBBS. We should not restrict a bright 
student on the basis of assumptions and ableist 
beliefs.”
16.	 Accordingly, the appellant was assessed to be eligible for pursuing 
the MBBS course with assistive devices. The second respondent 
has fairly accepted the eligibility of the appellant and has only joined 
issue with the fact that the assessment of candidate by a doctor 
must comply with the rules formulated under the statutory framework. 
These rules require the assessing doctor to be a domain expert in 
disabilities. In the present case this Court requested Dr Satendra 
Singh to assess the appellant which shall not be a precedent. To 
that extent the submission of the second respondent is accepted. 
We may note that this Court was constrained to order a functional 
competency test due to the failure of the previous two Boards to 
apply the legally permissible standard. The appellant shall not be 
made to undergo any further
assessments as part of his admission 
to the MBBS course. On 25 October 2024 this Court granted leave 
and directed that the appellant be permitted to participate in the 
ongoing counselling process arising out of NEET UG 2024. 
17.	 Unfortunately, this run hardly obviates further labour. The appellant 
finds himself re-entering the NEET counselling process after a lapse of 
valuable time. He was allocated a seat at the Dr Shankarrao Chavan 
Government Medical College, Nanded in the first and second rounds 
of All India Level counselling. Now, stray vacancies for the category 
of persons with disabilities at the All India Level are available in only 
nine colleges, none of which are in the home State of the appellant – 
Maharashtra. The appellant submits that none of the nine colleges 
are compliant with accessibility norms and adequate support systems 
necessary for him to enjoy a level playing field. The appellant now 
prays that this Court create a seat for him at the college which he 
was allocated in the initial rounds of counselling or for that matter at
2202
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
any college in Maharashtra. The run of the appellant from Washim 
to Nagpur and Delhi accompanied by several assessments now 
stands the chance of being fruitless. The appellant prays that this 
Court exercises its power to do complete justice under Article 142 of 
the Constitution. Additionally, the appellant prays that this Court may 
issue directives on the manner in which the grievances of exclusion 
of disabled candidates is to be considered inter alia by courts. 
C.	
The maze to inclusion: RPWD Act and guidelines
18.	 Section 323 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 20164 
stipulates that all Government and Government aided institutions of 
higher learning shall reserve not less than five percent of seats for 
persons with benchmark disability. The enactment of the RPWD Act 
in 2016 marked a paradigm shift in disability law in India from charity 
based to a rights based approach. Accordingly, the erstwhile Medical 
Council of India5 formulated guidelines on admission of persons 
with specific disability in MBBS courses. The Government of India 
approved the proposal of the committee on 28 January 2019 and 
issued a notification in the gazette on 5 February 2019. 
19.	 The report stipulated the guidelines in Appendix “H” which laid down 
six categories of locomotor disabilities including muscular dystrophy. 
All persons with a locomotor disability above eighty percent were 
rendered ineligible for medical
courses. Appendix “H” was substituted 
by Appendix “H-1” on 13 May 2019. The amendment allowed 
persons with more than eighty percent locomotor disabilities to 
pursue medical courses on a case to case basis. The new appendix 
states as follows:
“Persons with more than 80% disability may also be allowed 
on case to case basis and their functional competency 
will be determined with the aid of assistive devices, 
if it is being used, to see if it is brought below 80% and 
3	
“32. Reservation in higher educational institutions.—(1) All Government institutions of higher
education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not 
less than five per cent. seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.
(2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age relaxation of five years for
admission in institutions of higher education.”
4	
“RPWD Act”
5	
“MCI”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2203
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
whether they possess sufficient motor ability as required 
to pursue and complete the course satisfactorily.”
(emphasis supplied)
20.	 The amended guidelines brought about a welcome change by 
eschewing from a purely benchmark model to a functional ability 
model. For candidates with more than eighty percent locomotor 
disability, the guidelines allow their functional competency to be 
determined using assistive devices to see if it can be brought below 
80%. The second respondent has submitted that a new committee 
will be constituted to recommend new guidelines for admission of 
persons with disabilities into medical courses. 
21.	 The report of the MCI (the erstwhile version of the second respondent) 
which was the basis of the existing guidelines evidently found itself 
working in the remnants of the pre-RPWD Act legal regime. Besides 
making archaic observations requiring persons with disabilities to 
‘introspect and assess themselves whether they are likely to meet 
MCI standards and outcomes’ the guidelines also noted the definition 
of reasonable accommodation in Section 2(y)6 of the RPWD Act. The 
reference was only to further state that the standard of competence 
cannot be lowered in the name of accommodation. The observations, 
made without specific context on the standard or the accommodation 
in question, states as follows:
“MCI is aware of this provision and respects it.
However, 
MCI cannot agree to enforce reasonable accommodation 
that would alter or lower the standard of competence – 
which exists to protect patients – that is required. Such 
an accommodation, if granted would be ‘unreasonable’, 
and not reasonable. Moreover, in some cases, even with 
reasonable accommodation, it may not be possible for 
every disabled medical student to successfully and safely 
undertake all stages of medical education and training ”
22.	 From promoting self-rejection of disabled medical aspirants to 
assuming that their accommodations would lower the standard of 
6	
“(y) “reasonable accommodation” means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments,
without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with
disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others;”
2204
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
competence and would regardless be fruitless – the guidelines have 
charted their way into disrepute. Vitally, the resistance to alter the 
standard in a framework that has historically effaced a marginalised 
group – namely disabled persons other than in the capacity of a 
patient – is antithetical to any rights based approach to disability law. 
Many other issues of critical importance arise from these guidelines 
which are not germane to evaluate the case before us but may be 
open for an appropriate proceeding.7 The current guidelines allow 
persons with more than eight percent locomotor disability to be 
admitted to MBBS course on a case by case basis after a functional 
competency to see whether their disability can be ‘brought below 
80%.’ Before proceeding to analyse this guideline, it is essential that 
we clarify the phrase ‘brought below 80%’. 
23.	 The intention of the guideline in using the term ‘brought below 80%’ 
is ostensibly to mean that the functional assessment shall evaluate 
if the person with disability can perform the tasks which they are 
expected to perform as a student and a practitioner. The assumption 
in using the phrase ‘below 80%’ defeats the purpose of the guideline 
which is to allow candidates into the MBBS course on a case by case 
basis. Bodies are not biological parts put together – each to serve a 
pre-determined role. They are alive – with thoughts, feelings, dreams 
and aspirations.
All bodies – abled and disabled – are guaranteed 
dignity under the Constitution. A person with disability has to navigate 
the rigours of a society which was modelled on the premise of their 
absence. The disability of a person is a reflection on the inaccessibility 
of the society and not a comment upon the individual. A person does 
not overcome disability but learns to navigate life with it. Disability 
is not a thing to be overcome or brought down, but an attribute to 
be acknowledged and accommodated. The use of the term ‘brought 
below 80%,’ as well intentioned as it may be, fails at this foundational 
premise. One cannot assume that all persons with more than 80% 
locomotor disability are incompetent to pursue medicine when their 
functional abilities have not been assessed. The medical model of 
disability apparent in the phrase must give way to a social model of 
disability which takes into account the variety of experiences and 
7	
See Singh S, Medical Council of India’s new guidelines on admission of persons with specified 
disabilities: Unfair, discriminatory and unlawful. Indian J Med Ethics. 2019 Jan-Mar; 4(1) NS: 29-34. DOI: 
10.20529/IJME.2018.064.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2205
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
outcomes which persons with disabilities have when they interact 
with different kinds of societies and accommodations.
24.	 In Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures,8 this Court opined that words 
cultivate institutional discrimination and that the language of our 
discourse ought to be inclusive rather than alienating. When it comes 
to rights – language matters. Words may not always adequately reflect 
the intention of the drafter. Some words may be used unwittingly, 
without knowledge of their harmful consequences. Nevertheless, 
these words influence the thinking of others who hear them. Words 
are the tools one deploys to formulate thoughts. An expansive 
vocabulary allows people to think and articulate their thoughts better. 
When we use appropriate and sensitive language, we aspire for the 
quality of our thought to be broadened and evolve towards being 
emancipatory and inclusive. 
D.	
Principle of fair assessment of competence: reasonable 
accommodation and the functional competence model
25.	 The guidelines (Appendix “H-1”) stipulate that the functional 
competence of an aspirant with a locomotor disability above eighty 
percent may be assessed with the help of assistive devices. A 
purposive interpretation of this guideline requires us to interpret it 
in light of the legislative intent of the governing statute, namely, the 
RPWD Act. The RPWD Act is a watershed legislation for
disability 
rights in India. It honours India’s commitment at the international 
level under the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disability. The 
preamble to the RPWD Act states that:
“…AND WHEREAS the aforesaid Convention lays down 
the following principles for the empowerment of persons 
with disabilities,– 
(a)	 respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy 
including the freedom to make one’s own choices, 
and independence of persons;
(b)	 non-discrimination;
(c)	
full and effective participation and inclusion in society;
8	
[2024] 7 SCR 246 : 2024 INSC 465, para 74.
2206
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(d)	 respect for difference and acceptance of persons with 
disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;
(e)	 equality of opportunity;
(f)	
accessibility;
(g)	 equality between men and women;
(h)	 respect for the evolving capacities of children with 
disabilities and respect for the right of children with 
disabilities to preserve their identities;...”
26.	 The Act harmonises the Constitutional promise of full citizenship 
with action - by creating a framework in which persons with 
disabilities may translate their rights into remedies. To establish 
a bed of rights, Section 2 of the Act defines and acknowledges 
barriers,9 discrimination,10 inclusive education11 and reasonable 
accommodation.12 Section 3 of the Act affords the right to equality 
and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities. The requirement 
of assessing the functional competence of a medical aspirant with 
over eighty percent locomotor disability recognises that assessment 
must be done on a case to case basis. The method of assessment 
by designated Disability Assessment Boards must therefore reflect 
the approach and intent of the legal framework within which the 
Boards operate. An assessment for functional competency entails an 
analysis of the skill set which a person with disability must learn in 
order to compete and pursue the medical course. This is a marked 
difference from requiring a specific manner which a candidate must 
use
to achieve the outcome. For example, a functional competency 
model would require a candidate to effectively communicate with 
9	
“(c) “barrier” means any factor including communicational, cultural, economic, environmental, institutional, 
political, social, attitudinal or structural factors which hampers the full and effective participation of 
persons with disabilities in society;”
10	
“(h) “discrimination” in relation to disability, means any distinction, exclusion, restriction on the basis of 
disability which is the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise 
on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, 
social, cultural, civil or any other field and includes all forms of discrimination and denial of reasonable 
accommodation;”
11	
“(m) “inclusive education” means a system of education wherein students with and without disability 
learn together and the system of teaching and learning is suitably adapted to meet the learning needs of 
different types of students with disabilities;”
12	
“(y) “reasonable accommodation” means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, 
without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with 
disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others;”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2207
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
patients but would not require them to have speech or intact hands. 
By focusing on the end points, the approach avoids any ableism to 
seep into the assessment and avoids reifying that there is one and 
only one manner to achieve desired outcomes. 
27.	 A failure to create a conducive environment is a failure to provide 
reasonable accommodation.13 Section 2(h) of the RPWD Act defines 
discrimination in the context of disability as “any distinction, exclusion, 
restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect 
of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on 
an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental 
freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other 
field and includes all forms of discrimination and denial of reasonable 
accommodation.” The denial of reasonable accommodation is 
expressly recognised as discrimination under the RPWD Act. For 
the proper realisation of reasonable accommodation, a person with 
disability must be identified using correct parameters and thereafter 
the accommodations necessary have to be determined on a case 
by case basis. 
28.	 Justice KV Viswanathan speaking for this Court in Omkar Gond (supra) 
has applied a purposive interpretation to the guidelines (Appendix “H-1”) 
in the context of a medical aspirant with dialectic incapacity. This Court 
held that the principle of
reasonable accommodation in Section 2(y) 
of the RPWD Act read with Article 41 of the Constitution necessarily 
means that (i) a person cannot be disqualified merely on the basis of 
a benchmark quantification. Such a criteria would be unconstitutional 
for being overbroad; (ii) the Disability Assessment Board must not act 
as monotonous automations looking at the quantified disability and 
disqualifying candidates. The Board must examine if the candidate 
can pursue the course with their disability; and (iii) in doing so, the 
Board is not merely obliged to provide assistive devices and other 
substances which will help the candidate. The true role of the Board 
is to assess the competence of a candidate.
29.	 The principle of reasonable accommodation is not only statutorily 
prescribed but also rooted in the fundamental rights guaranteed to 
persons with disabilities under Part III of the Constitution. Reasonable 
accommodation is a fundamental right. It is a gateway right for 
13	
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India (2023) 2 SCC 209
2208
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
persons with disabilities to enjoy all the other rights enshrined in the 
Constitution and the law. Without the gateway right of reasonable 
accommodation, a person with disability is forced to navigate in a world 
which excludes them by design. It strikes a fatal blow to their ability 
to make life choices and pursue opportunities. From mundane tasks 
of daily life to actions undertaken to realise personal and professional 
aspirations - all are throttled when reasonable accommodations are 
denied. Reasonable accommodation is a facet of substantive equality 
and its failure constitutes discrimination. In Vikash Kumar v. UPSC,14 
this Court adjudicated on whether a person with a writer’s cramp is 
entitled to a scribe for writing the examination. Allowing the use of 
a scribe, this Court held that the benchmark standard can only be 
applied where expressly stipulated. Section 2(s) of the RPWD Act 
defines a person with disability as a person with long term physical, 
mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with 
barriers, hinders their full and effective participation in society equally 
with others. Therefore, a person - to be considered as a person with 
disability - does not have to qualify any benchmark. The principle 
that the rights and entitlements cannot be constricted by adopting a 
benchmark as a condition precedent was also upheld by this Court 
in Avni Prakash v. NTA.15
30.	 Section 3
of the RPWD Act affords persons with disabilities a right 
to equality and non-discrimination. In Vikash Kumar (supra) this 
Court held that Section 3 casts an affirmative obligation on the 
Government and private entities to take steps to ensure reasonable 
accommodation and utilize the capacity of persons with disabilities by 
providing an appropriate environment. There is a positive obligation 
to realise the inclusive premise in the concept of reasonable 
accommodation. This includes the duty to create an environment 
conducive for the development of persons with disabilities. This 
Court has held that:
“... The accommodation which the law mandates is 
‘reasonable’ because it has to be tailored to the 
requirements of each condition of disability. The 
expectations which every disabled person has are unique 
14	
[2021] 12 SCR 311 : (2021) 5 SCC 370
15	
[2021] 11 SCR 891 : (2023) 2 SCC 286
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2209
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
to the nature of the disability and the character of the 
impediments which are encountered as its consequence.
...
48. Failure to meet the individual needs of every 
disabled person will breach the norm of reasonable 
accommodation. Flexibility in answering individual needs 
and requirements is essential to reasonable accommodation. 
The principle of reasonable accommodation must also 
account for the fact that disability based discrimination is 
intersectional in nature. The intersectional features arise 
in particular contexts due to the presence of multiple 
disabilities and multiple consequences arising from 
disability. Disability therefore cannot be truly understood 
by regarding it as unidimensional.”
(emphasis supplied)
31.	 In Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India,16 while dealing with 
a case of a CRPF officer with a mental health condition, this Court 
had the opportunity to opine that disability is a social construct. Its 
manifestation is contingent on the manner in which it interacts with 
inter alia social, economic and historical factors. A one-size-fits-all 
approach cannot be adopted in assessing disability. Disability is not a 
universal but an individualistic conception based on the impairments 
that a person has along with the barriers they face. Since the 
barriers that every person faces are personal to their interpersonal 
and structural surroundings - a general
observation of permissible 
behaviour cannot be made. 
32.	 Central to the principles of reasonable accommodation and the 
individualized experience of disability is the right to access legal 
protections without undue mental hardship. If persons with disabilities 
must repeatedly turn to the courts to correct the missteps of 
authorities, then the rights recognized by this Court and the RPWD 
Act risk becoming hollow assurances. For every person who has the 
awareness or ability to move this Court there are numerous others 
16	
[2021] 13 SCR 823 : (2023) 2 SCC 209
2210
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
who suffer in silence. In the present case, the appellant was subjected 
to protracted and mentally exhausting assessments that failed to 
apply the correct standards, leading to a declaration of ineligibility. 
His first journey by air was not for leisure or education but to undergo 
a medical assessment in Delhi by an order of this Court. In this 
process, valuable time was lost, and the appellant faced intrusive 
and irrelevant questioning. Persons with disabilities often confront 
systemic failures that engender a deep sense of disappointment - 
a disappointment that reflects the frequency and predictability with 
which the system fails them. Those with disabilities who aspire to 
succeed must not only plan meticulously but also brace themselves 
for the barriers they will inevitably face due to their disabilities.
33.	 For many persons with disabilities, the stress of medical visits - 
the frequent trips to hospitals, the constant readiness to attend 
appointments, the long waits, the uncertainty of a doctor’s availability, 
and the anxiety over the results - forms part of their lived reality. At 
the very least, they deserve a process and an outcome that is fair 
and reasoned. The mental toll which processes before a medical 
board has on people is recognised by this Court. In A (Mother 
of X) v. State of Maharashtra,17 this Court had the opportunity to 
opine on the shifting stances of medical boards which are often
observed in cases relating to medical termination of pregnancy. This 
Court held that the lack of application of proper standards, simpliciter 
recantation of statutory provision and changes in opinions cause 
undue mental trauma to the pregnant person. In the backdrop of 
the fear of prosecution which many registered medical practitioners 
(RMP) have, this Court emphasised on the role of medical experts 
to ensure that the fundamental rights of persons before them is not 
compromised. The Court held as follows:
“...The opinion of the RMP is decisive in matters of 
termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act. The purpose 
of the opinion of the RMP borrows from the legislative intent 
of the MTP Act which is to protect the health of a pregnant 
person and facilitate safe, hygienic, and legal abortion. The 
right to abortion is a concomitant right of dignity, autonomy 
17	
2024 INSC 371 : [2024] 5 SCR 470
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2211
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
and reproductive choice. This right is guaranteed under 
Article 21 of the Constitution. The decision to terminate 
pregnancy is deeply personal for any person. The choice 
exercised by a pregnant person is not merely about their 
reproductive freedom but also about their agency as 
recognised by this court in X v. State (NCT of Delhi). It 
is therefore imperative that the fundamental right of 
a pregnant person is not compromised for reasons 
other than to protect the physical and mental health 
of the pregnant person. 
...
23. The opinion of the RMP or the medical board, as the 
case may be, is indispensable under the scheme of the 
MTP Act. This inadvertently gives the power to the 
RMP or the medical board to stand in the way of a 
pregnant person exercising their choice to terminate 
the pregnancy. When there is fear or apprehension in the 
mind of the RMP or the medical board it directly jeopardises 
the fundamental freedoms of pregnant persons guaranteed 
under the Constitution....”
(emphasis supplied)
34.	 Therefore, this Court has in the past opined on the pattern of conduct 
in medical boards and sought to align it with legal and Constitutional 
guarantees so as not to render the fundamental rights of persons 
before these boards nugatory. In Bambhaniya Sagar Vashrambhai v. 
Union of India,18 this Court has held that Disability Assessment 
Boards must not adopt the approach of a
recluse by confining 
themselves to only quantifying the disability of a candidate. In that 
case, the medical board had reported an unreasoned opinion that 
the candidate was ineligible to continue his MBBS course on account 
of being more than 80% disabled. Like in A (Mother of X) (supra), 
the Court in Bambhaniya (supra) also emphasised the need for 
elaborate reasons by the medical board while reporting their opinions. 
18	
WP (C) 856 of 2023.
2212
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
35.	 In Purswani Ashutosh v. Union of India,19 this Court was deciding 
if a medical aspirant who had appeared for the NEET UG Exam 
2018 was eligible for the reservation earmarked for persons with 
disabilities. Despite having low vision impairment - the Medical 
Board had opined that the petitioner in that case was ineligible for 
reservation. While rejecting the opinion of the committee, this Court 
held that a medical board cannot be allowed to override the statutory 
mandate of providing reservation to persons with disabilities. No 
committee has primacy over the law. We must emphasize that the 
opinions of medical boards and committees are not only required 
to adhere to legal standards but must also embody core principles 
of the rule of law within their processes. This Court, following a 
consistent line of precedent, has underscored the need for reasoned 
and transparent decisions by such boards, given the profound impact 
these opinions have on the life trajectory of individuals before them. 
36.	 At its core, the rule of law demands predictable rules, equitable 
application, unbiased adjudication and fair, transparent treatment of 
individuals. In cases of assessment, this entails informing individuals 
about the procedures, standards, tools, and all pertinent aspects 
of the assessment in advance. Such transparency is essential to 
avoid any arbitrary uncertainty arising from obscure or inconsistent
procedures. The procedures must be inherently fair and bear a rational 
and cogent nexus with the purpose which is sought to be achieved. 
A committee’s role goes beyond mere quantification of disability; 
disability is a factual condition. The key question for a Disability 
Assessment Board is whether an individual with a disability, aided by 
modern scientific tools and devices, can enter the MBBS program. 
Put differently, the board must assess whether it is infeasible for the 
candidate to pursue a medical career with their disability.
37.	 Appendix “H-1” stipulates that assessments, particularly for individuals 
with locomotor disabilities exceeding 80%, should focus on evaluating 
functional competence. This functional competency test serves two 
critical purposes. First, it emphasizes the abilities of the person with 
a disability, assessing their capability rather than their limitations. 
Second, it mandates an evaluation rooted in practical relevance, 
aligning the candidate’s abilities with the functional requirements of 
19	
(2019) 14 SCC 422
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2213
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
the MBBS curriculum. Mere quantification of disability is insufficient 
and fails to address the necessary criteria, a position this Court has 
consistently upheld as unsatisfactory in such cases.20
38.	 At this point, it is imperative to deal with the holding of this Court in 
Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. Union of India.21 In that case, persons 
with disabilities who had appeared for the NEET UG Exam 2019 
had moved this Court against their disqualification by the Medical 
Board. Appendix “H” had been issued midway through the process 
for admitting candidates from the NEET UG 2019. The primary 
contention of the petitioners was that since the new guidelines were 
issued in the middle of the admission process, they must not apply 
to the ongoing process. The petitioners prayed to be tested against 
the rules as they existed at the time of the application process for 
the examination, namely, the MCI guidelines of 2017. On this count, 
the Court ruled against the petitioners. The demurrer argument of the 
petitioners was that they have not been tested on relevant parameters. 
This Court while rejecting the argument noted that the petitioners 
were disqualified for not meeting the eligibility criteria of having “both 
hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of 
motion.” Accordingly, the Court refused to sit in appeal over the expert 
body’s opinion. The judgment of the
Court in Vidhi Himmat Katariya 
(supra) was specific to the facts of that case and did not involve any 
question of interpretation or Constitutional analysis. The Court was 
not examining any criteria and did not scrutinise the guidelines to 
inspect their validity. The Court did not have the benefit of looking 
at the firm roots which reasonable accommodation has grown within 
the fold of the Constitution. Further, the judgments of this Court in 
Vikash Kumar (supra), Avni Prakash (supra), Ravinder Dhariwal 
(supra) and Omkar Gond (supra) were not available to the Court while 
dealing with the case of Vidhi Himmat Katariya (supra). Therefore, 
the opinion in Vidhi Himmat Katariya (supra) is inapplicable. 
39.	 Courts are not expert bodies in matters of medicine. The competent 
authority to adjudge the eligibility of a person to pursue a medical 
course is the Disability Assessment Board. However, courts have the 
jurisdiction to ensure that the manner in which the Board proceeds and 
20	
Omkar Gond v. Union of India (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2401; Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370; 
Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India, WP (C) 856 of 2023
21	
[2019] 12 SCR 821 : (2019) 10 SCC 20
2214
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
functions is in compliance with established principles of law. Ultimately, 
the Court will have to rely on the opinion of the Board to adjudicate the 
legal remedies of a person with disability. The interference of Courts 
is not to supplant its opinion for that of the experts but to ensure that 
a holistic evaluation of competence is conducted and that no person’s 
career is set at naught with the stroke of a pen.
40.	 The Courts cannot be stupefied into inaction by the lack of adequate 
framework or expertise when questions of fundamental rights emerge. 
No person forfeits their claim to education or other pursuits of life 
on account of their disability. The flurry of cases concerning medical 
aspirants with disability which has come before this Court shows that 
the overarching issue is a sense of over medicalization of disabled 
bodies by the Assessment Boards. The approach often taken, due to 
inertia or unwittingly, is to assume that a person with disability may 
not be eligible for pursuing the course and then to put the candidates 
under tests to prove the assumption. The approach focuses more on 
the disability of a person than their ability. This turns the principle of 
reasonable accommodation on its head. The question instead that 
the Board ought to ask itself is this - what measures can be taken 
to ensure that the candidate with disability can start their MBBS 
course on an equal footing with their
prospective classmates? The 
change in question brings a change in perspective. The only negative 
answer to the question would be that - in line with contemporary 
scientific advancements, no devices or accommodations can enable 
the person with disability before them to compete at a level playing 
field. Courts must ensure that the sanctity of the principles in the 
RPWD Act and in the Constitution are not violated by the conduct 
or the outcome of the assessment. 
E.	
Building bridges for the nation: principle to practice
“But it taught me, at a very early age, that most things are 
possible when you assume problems can be solved.”
― Judith Heumann22
(regarded as the mother of the disability rights movement)
22	
Judith Heumann & Kristen Joiner (2020). Being Heumann: An Unrepentant Memoir of a Disability Rights 
Activist. Beacon Press : Boston, Massachusetts.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2215
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
41.	 We started by noting that the principle and application of law have 
stood at opposite banks of the river. The true mandate of the law is to 
be an agent of inclusion and an abettor and executor of justice. Law 
reflects the outlook of its wielder. A parochial legal system will create 
laws which result in maldistribution of life chances and opportunities. 
In India, we have adopted an emancipatory Constitution premised 
on the fundamental virtues of equal dignity and access. The wielder 
of the law, therefore, is rooted in a progressive grundnorm which 
seeks to eschew from societal prejudices and biases.
42.	 The window to these progressive virtues is envisioned in the preamble 
to the Constitution. The preamble, along with justice, liberty and 
equality, seeks to secure to all citizens - “FRATERNITY assuring the 
dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.” The 
fundamental postulate of dignity which inheres in all people is intrinsic 
to the idea of fraternity and national integration. Fraternity, far from 
being mere collegiality among citizens, imagines a holistic sharing 
of goals and aspirations. It recognizes that to progress together we 
must join forces in our mutual advancement and emancipation. The 
framing of the preambular virtue of fraternity identifies the dignity of 
all individuals as a pre-condition. Dignity of the individual is assured 
when
they are given equal opportunity and the freedom to contribute 
to the society - shoulder to shoulder with fellow citizens. 
43.	 No nation can truly progress until all her people realize a stake in 
their collective outcome. In one sense discrimination excludes the 
aggrieved from the collective imagination of the nation. In another 
sense the nation is deprived of the expertise and brilliance of those 
who are discriminated. We aspire to have institutions and systems 
which reflect the rich diversity of our country. The aspiration is one 
rooted in our commitment to the nation. Diverse institutions are vital 
to ensure the governance of a diverse nation. When persons with 
disabilities are discriminated against, it not only affects their individual 
aspirations and dignity - it strikes a blow to the entire nation and the 
collective goal of integration and fraternity.
44.	 Justice PB Sawant concurring with the decision of the nine-Judge 
bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India,23 has opined 
that inequality ill-favours fraternity. Without equality of opportunity 
23	
[1992] Supp. 2 SCR 454 : (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217
2216
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
there can be no fraternity. Justice Sawant has articulated his holding 
as follows:
“411. The aim of any civilised society should be to 
secure dignity to every individual. There cannot be 
dignity without equality of status and opportunity. 
The absence of equal opportunities in any walk of social 
life is a denial of equal status and equal participation 
in the affairs of the society and, therefore, of its equal 
membership. The dignity of the individual is dented in 
direct proportion to his deprivation of the equal access to 
social means. The democratic foundations are missing 
when equal opportunity to grow, govern, and give one’s 
best to the society is denied to a sizeable section of the 
society. The deprivation of the opportunities may be direct 
or indirect as when the wherewithals to avail of them are 
denied. Nevertheless, the consequences are as potent.
412. Inequality ill-favours fraternity, and unity remains 
a dream without fraternity. The goal enumerated 
in the Preamble of the Constitution, of fraternity 
assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity 
and integrity of the nation must, therefore, remain 
unattainable so long as the equality of opportunity 
is not ensured to all.
413. Likewise, the social and political justice pledged 
by the Preamble of the Constitution to be secured to all 
citizens, will remain a myth unless first economic justice 
is guaranteed to all. The liberty of thought and
expression 
also will remain on paper in the face of economic 
deprivations. A remunerative occupation is a means 
not only of economic upliftment but also of instilling 
in the individual self-assurance, self-esteem and self-
worthiness. It also accords him a status and a dignity 
as an independent and useful member of the society. It 
enables him to participate in the affairs of the society 
without dependence on, or domination by, others, and 
on an equal plane depending upon the nature, security 
and remuneration of the occupation. Employment is an
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2217
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
important and by far the dominant remunerative occupation, 
and when it is with the Government, semi-Government 
or Government-controlled organisation, it has an added 
edge. It is coupled with power and prestige of varying 
degrees and nature, depending upon the establishment 
and the post. The employment under the State, by itself, 
may, many times help achieve the triple goal of social, 
economic and political justice.
(emphasis supplied)
45.	 Dr Martin Luther King Jr has famously remarked that “injustice 
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” When we allow 
injustice to occur, we normalize the idea that fundamental rights and 
freedoms are violable. The inviolability of our collective commitment 
is weakened. Discrimination cracks open a wedge in the fabric of 
the society - it violates the Constitution and erodes the humanity of 
the person discriminated against. The discrimination can manifest 
directly or indirectly. Its manifestation eats into our commitment to 
each other and of the State to the people. In Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. 
Union of India,24 a three-Judge Bench of this Court while dealing 
with the validity of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes 
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 has opined that the Constitution is 
also a pact between the people of India. It is a promise of oneness 
and equality. The Court opined as follows:
“15. The Constitution of India is
… a pact between people, 
about the relationships that they guarantee to each other 
(apart from the guarantee of liberties vis-à-vis the State) 
in what was a society riven along caste and sectarian 
divisions. That is why the preambular assurance that the 
republic would be one which guarantees to its people 
liberties, dignity, equality of status and opportunity and 
fraternity.
16. It is this idea of India, — a promise of oneness of and 
for, all people, regardless of caste, gender, place of birth, 
24	
[2020] 2 SCR 727 : (2020) 4 SCC 727
2218
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
religion and other divisions that Part III articulates in four 
salient provisions : Article 15, Article 17, Article 23 and 
Article 24. The idea of fraternity occupying as crucial a place 
in the scheme of our nation’s consciousness and polity, 
is one of the lesser explored areas in the constitutional 
discourse of this Court. The fraternity assured by the 
Preamble is not merely a declaration of a ritual handshake 
or cordiality between communities that are diverse and 
have occupied different spaces : it is far more. …”
46.	 What the movement for disability justice shares with other social 
justice movements - such as the anti-caste movement, feminism 
and queer and trans justice - is that they call into question the 
fundamental arrangement of a society which has created prejudicial 
structures. Inaccessibility and non-inclusion are taken as suspect 
categories to question the prevalent social order. In doing so these 
movements invite us to contribute to the national goal of fraternity 
and integration. Far from being interruptive in the national journey - 
calls for equal access and equal justice postulate a disruption in the 
order of discrimination and prejudices so that we may carry on the 
journey of national progress. They do not only champion the group 
interest of a certain class of citizens but instead advocate for a larger 
vision of a justice oriented society. A society where discrimination 
and exclusion
are addressed and eliminated will create a just and 
equitable system for all persons regardless of their identities. To be 
intersectional is to see the common goals across vectors of identities 
by eliminating systems of discrimination. It is a call to eschew from 
simplistic identity reductionism and to imagine meaningful remedies 
for marginalised groups and persons. It calls for a world with equity 
and justice where our uniqueness forms part of benign differences 
among people and lends vibrance to our diversity. The Constitution 
enables this project of fraternity by guaranteeing rights to life, dignity, 
freedom, equality and non-discrimination inter alia under Articles 21, 
19, 14, and 15.
47.	 When reasonable accommodation is denied to a person with 
disability, it amounts to discrimination and violates the fundamental 
rights of the aggrieved person and the preambular virtue of fraternity 
along with justice, liberty and equality. Persons with disability are 
not objects of pity or charity but an integral part of our society and
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2219
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
nation. The advancement of rights for persons with disabilities is a 
national project along with eradication of all forms of discrimination. A 
component of this project is the inclusion of persons with disabilities 
in all pursuits of life. 
48.	 In Vikash Kumar (supra) this Court opined that the most significant 
loser of a rigid inaccessible system is the system itself. The Court 
resonated the idea of a generation of persons with disabilities who 
take it as their birthright to access the full panoply of entitlements. 
This Court has held as follows:
“81. When competent persons with disabilities are unable 
to realise their full potential due to the barriers posed in 
their path, our society suffers, as much, if not more, as 
do the disabled people involved. In their blooming and 
blossoming, we all bloom and blossom. The most significant 
loser as a consequence of UPSC’s rigid approach in this 
case (of refusing to provide scribes to those not having 
benchmark disabilities) is UPSC itself. For it is denying to 
the nation the opportunity to be served by highly competent 
people who claim nothing but access to equal opportunity 
and a barrier-free environment.
...
98. Cases such as the present offer us an opportunity 
to make a meaningful contribution in the project of 
creating the RPwD generation in India. A generation of 
disabled people in India which regards as its birthright
access to the full panoply of constitutional entitlements, 
robust statutory rights geared to meet their unique needs 
and conducive societal conditions needed for them to 
flourish and to truly become co-equal participants in all 
facets of life.”
49.	 When we create avenues for inclusion, we work towards improving 
systems and institutions. In the context of healthcare, the inclusion 
of persons with disabilities is a vital component of quality healthcare. 
The guidelines and recommendations which express concern about 
“lowering the standard of medical practice” on account of persons 
with disabilities miss the fact that these standards may not be 
adequate to begin with. The quality of a system is informed by its
2220
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
ability to empathise with and relate to the recipients. A system without 
adequate number of practitioners who have lived experiences will 
not be able to fully imagine the obstacles and grievances faced by 
a diverse population. Diversity of workforce is crucial for a diverse 
society, so that everyone may have a stake in the system and the 
system can effectively discharge its duties toward everyone.
50.	 Section 2525 of the RPWD Act outlines the positive obligation of 
Government and local authorities to provide healthcare to persons 
with disabilities. An affirmative obligation is placed to ensure that 
persons with disabilities receive a barrier free access to all public 
and private healthcare institutions. Removal of barriers can only 
be achieved if persons with disabilities feel comfortable while 
accessing healthcare. The barriers faced by a person may be 
physical, psychological and attitudinal. The inclusion of persons 
with disabilities within medical practice is vital to ensure that the 
approach of the medical community and of hospitals and other 
healthcare institutes is humane, sensitive and informed by lived 
experiences. It strengthens our fraternity. Therefore, the process 
through which medical aspirants with disability enter the profession 
must be compatible with constitutional and statutory entitlements 
and guarantees.
25	
“25. Healthcare.—(1) The appropriate Government and the local authorities
shall take necessary 
measures for the persons with disabilities to provide,— 
(a) free healthcare in the vicinity specially in rural area subject to such family income as may be notified; 
(b) barrier-free access in all parts of Government and private hospitals and other healthcare institutions 
and centres; 
(c) priority in attendance and treatment. 
(2) The appropriate Government and the local authorities shall take measures and make schemes or 
programmes to promote healthcare and prevent the occurrence of disabilities and for the said purpose 
shall— 
(a) undertake or cause to be undertaken surveys, investigations and research concerning the cause of 
occurrence of disabilities; 
(b) promote various methods for preventing disabilities; 
(c) screen all the children at least once in a year for the purpose of identifying “at-risk” cases; 
(d) provide facilities for training to the staff at the primary health centres; 
(e) sponsor or cause to be sponsored awareness campaigns and disseminate or cause to be 
disseminated information for general hygiene, health and sanitation; 
(f) take measures for pre-natal, perinatal and post-natal care of mother and child; 
(g) educate the public through the pre-schools, schools, primary health centres, village level workers 
and anganwadi workers; 
(h) create awareness amongst the masses through television, radio and other mass media on the 
causes of disabilities and the preventive measures to be adopted; 
(i) healthcare during the time
of natural disasters and other situations of risk; 
(j) essential medical facilities for life saving emergency treatment and procedures; and 
(k) sexual and reproductive healthcare especially for women with disability.”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2221
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
51.	 The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities in its concluding observations on the initial report of 
India26 has inter alia identified the medical model of disability as a 
prominent concern. It has stated as follows:
“(a) The prevalence of the medical model of disability in 
legislation, public policies and attitudes concerning persons 
with disabilities, particularly in the multiple assessments 
and certification of disability and the requirement 
for different assessments to access services in the 
community, and in the misunderstanding of disability, 
including leprosy, as solely a biological condition requiring 
prevention and rehabilitation;”
(emphasis supplied)
52.	 The committee has recommended that the concern be remedied with 
inter alia reforming guidelines assessing persons with disabilities 
by adopting a human rights model. The recommendation has also 
opined against the multiplicity of assessments which we have echoed 
above. The recommendation states as follows:
“(b) Reform the guidelines for assessing and certifying 
disability to bring them into line with the human rights 
model of disability, ensuring that organizations of persons 
with disabilities are involved in the reform, that multiple 
assessments do not create an undue burden for 
applicants, and that policies and programmes shift from 
care, treatment and protection towards the
removal of 
environmental and attitudinal barriers, which prevent 
equality and inclusion;”
(emphasis supplied)
53.	 We have noted above that Disability Assessment Boards must comply 
with rule of law principles by injecting transparency, fairness and 
consistency in their approach. The Boards must further elaborate on 
26	
UN. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (22nd sess). CRPD/C/IND/CO/1. Concluding 
observations on the initial report of India : Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Geneva : 
UN, 29 Oct. 2019.
2222
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the reasons for the outcome of their assessment, in particular when 
they opine that the candidate is ineligible. The Disability Assessment 
Boards must focus on the functional competence of persons with 
disabilities and not merely quantify the disability. The quantification 
of disability is a task in need of a purpose within the human rights 
based model of disability. The functional competency approach to 
assessment for a medical course is globally recognised. To enable 
members of the Assessment Boards in effectively applying the 
functional competency test, they must be adequately trained by 
professionals and persons with disabilities or persons who have 
worked on disability justice. These trainings must be with a view 
to enhance the understanding of the Board members in assessing 
persons with disabilities and must not pathologize or problematize 
them. 
54.	 The disability of a person is quantified at the time of availing a 
Unique Disability ID Card.27 The quantification of disability is moot 
at the point of admission to educational courses since the eligibility 
for a person to benefit from reservation may be evaluated using the 
quantification in the UDID Card. If a person with disability wants to 
have themself re-assessed so as to verify whether their disability falls 
within the prescribed parameters for reservation - they may choose 
to do so by updating their UDID Cards. The role of the Disability
Assessment Boards must be tailored (with a functional competency 
approach) only for the course which the candidate seeks to pursue.
55.	 Further, the journey of a person with disability to apply for the NEET 
Examination and thereafter pursue medicine at the college must also 
comply with accessibility norms. The application portal for NEET 
Examination must outline the accessibility compliances of different 
colleges to enable prospective students with disabilities in making 
an informed decision. Once admitted, the Enabling Units established 
under the directions of the University Grants Commission must act 
as a point of contact for persons with disabilities to access clinical 
accommodations. Students must be informed about the Enabling 
Units and Equal Opportunity Cells through the information booklet 
circulated for new MBBS students, the college website and the Equal 
27	
“UDID Card”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2223
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
Opportunity Policy under Section 21 of RPWD Act. The second 
respondent must make appropriate directions in this regard. 
56.	 In the UK, the General Medical Council, which regulates medical 
education, has issued an advisory guidance titled Welcome and 
valued. The guidance outlines how institutions can comply with their 
duties to afford reasonable accommodation to disabled medical 
students. The guidance inter alia lists the steps for supporting medical 
students. After addressing student requirements and agreeing on a 
support action plan, the guidance outlines the following steps, which 
are indicative and may not be appropriate for all:
a.	
Forming a support group or a lead to deal with support 
arrangements of incoming students with disabilities;
b.	
Identifying key persons of contact with students with disabilities 
and for each of the services involved in exploring the support 
arrangements;
c.	
Informing students on how their information will be used 
in compliance with confidentiality. Colleges are further 
recommended to:
i.	
Keep a clear audit trail of decision making for supporting 
disabled learners as this is likely to help schools make sure 
they have taken appropriate steps to provide reasonable 
adjustments;
ii.	
Keep a record of all conversations between the support 
group and student. Agree on the method of recording such 
conversations and allow the student to see a
draft record 
of any discussions;
iii.	
Create a separate file with different access arrangements 
for confidential information related to health outside of the 
general student record.
d.	
The lead must thereafter organise a meeting between the student 
and the support group. The group may also arrange meetings 
to evaluate cases and discuss progress; and 
e.	
Lastly, a decision may be made on whether the student with 
disability can be provided adequate support to enable them in 
meeting the outcomes desirable in a medical graduate.
2224
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
57.	 The provision of an audit trail to assess whether a given accommodation 
required by a student with disability places an undue burden on the 
institution is a vital safeguard for transparency and fairness. Dr 
Satendra Singh in his report dated 20 October 2024 has made 
suggestions to (i) rename the Disability Assessment Boards as 
Ability Assessment Boards to align them better with their intended 
purpose; (ii) include a doctor with disability or who is well conversant 
with disability rights in such Boards; (iii) use a human rights 
model of disability for assessment; (iv) issue guidance on clinical 
accommodations; (v) train the Boards in carrying out the disability 
competency assessment; and (vi) use the Enabling Units to serve as 
a contact point for clinical accommodations. As far as the inclusion 
of doctors with disabilities in the Disability Assessment Boards is 
concerned - the first respondent has issued a circular on 24 March 
2022 mandating such inclusion. This direction shall be complied 
with by all Boards.
58.	 The second respondent has submitted that in light of the judgment 
of this Court in Omkar Gond (supra), it will be constituting a new 
committee of domain experts to comply with the directions in that 
judgment. We note the assurance of the second respondent and 
direct that this committee shall include persons with disability or one 
or more experts who are well conversant with disability
rights. The 
committee shall recommend fresh guidelines to replace the existing 
guidelines. The above suggestions shall be duly considered by the 
government on its own merits. The recommendations so formulated 
shall comply with this judgment.
F.	
Conclusions
59.	 Our conclusions in light of this case are formulated in the following 
terms:
a.	
The impugned judgment of the Nagpur bench of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay is set aside and the report of the Disability 
Assessment Board of AIIMS, Nagpur dated 13 August 2024 is 
quashed for failing to apply the statutory and regulatory standards 
applicable to the assessment of a person with disability;
b.	
A supernumerary seat shall be created at the AIIMS, Nagpur 
and the seat shall be allocated to the appellant, provided that 
he has not already secured a seat at a college of his choosing;
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2225
Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors.
c.	
The college shall be given the report dated 20 October 2024 
which makes suggestions as to the accommodations which 
may be extended to the appellant to successfully pursue the 
MBBS course;
d.	
The appellant shall be protected from victimisation;
e.	
The judgement shall apply in rem.
60.	 We further conclude as follows:
a.	
The second respondent shall issue fresh guidelines for admitting 
persons with disabilities into medical courses. The committee 
formulating the guidelines must include experts with disability or 
persons who have worked on disability justice. The guidelines 
shall comply with the judgments of this Court and contemporary 
advancements in disability justice;
b.	
The Disability Assessment Boards shall eschew from a 
benchmark model to test the functional competence of medical 
aspirants with disability. The second respondent shall issue 
appropriate guidelines in this regard;
a.	
The Disability Assessment Boards shall include a doctor or 
health professional with disability as per the directions of the 
first respondent dated 24 March 2022;
b.	
The conduct of the Disability Assessment Boards shall be fair, 
transparent and in compliance with principles of the rule of law. 
Attention must be paid to ensure that candidates appearing 
before the Board do not feel uncomfortable on account of 
physical or attitudinal barriers;
c.	
Reasonable accommodation is a gateway right
to avail all 
other fundamental, human and legal rights for persons with 
disabilities. Non-availability of reasonable accommodation 
amounts to discrimination and violates substantive equality of 
persons with disabilities;
d.	
The inclusion of persons with disability in the medical profession 
would enhance the quality of healthcare and meet the 
preambular virtue of fraternity and the guarantees in Articles 
21, 19, 14 and 15 of the Constitution;
e.	
Applicants to the NEET examination must be informed about the 
compliance of accessibility norms and provisions of reasonable

2226
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
accommodation available at colleges. The respondents shall 
issue appropriate directions to create a database with relevant 
information on accessibility and reasonable accommodation; and
f.	
Enabling Units at medical colleges shall act as points of 
contact for persons with disability desirous of accessing clinical 
accommodations.
61.	 A copy of this Judgment will be transmitted to the Secretaries of all 
concerned Ministries of the Government of India. 
62.	 The appeal is allowed in the above terms. 
63.	 Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey