2025 INSC 623 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No (s). 29275 of 2024)

KABIR PAHARIA ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION

AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

2

3. The appellant being a person with benchmark

disabilities (for short ‘PwBD’) belongs to the reserved

category of Scheduled Caste and aspires for admission

to the MBBS UG (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of

Surgery) course. Having been denied admission to the

MBBS course, despite standing high in merit in his

category i.e., Scheduled Castes-PwBD quota, the

appellant approached the High Court of Delhi at New

Delhi

1 by filing a Writ Petition (C) No. 12165 of 2024,

which came to be rejected vide order dated 10

th

September, 2024. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 967 of

2024, preferred by the appellant, also stands rejected

by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order

dated 12

th November, 2024, which is assailed in this

appeal by special leave.

1

Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court.’

3

4. The facts in brief, essential for disposal of the

present matter, can be gathered from the detailed order

dated 2

nd April, 2025 passed by this Court, which is

reproduced hereinbelow: -

“2. The petitioner passed Secondary School

Examination/Class X

th

in 2022 with 91.5% marks

and class XII

th

exams with 90% marks. He appeared

for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (for

short “NEET”) UG 2024 Examinations in the category

of SC/PwBD candidate. The deformities suffered by

the petitioner in his body are as below:-

“congenital absence of multiple fingers in

both hands as well as involvement of left

foot (2

nd

and 3

rd

toe), the extent whereof has

been assessed at 42%.”

3. Despite the structural disadvantages referred to

above, the petitioner performed exceedingly well in

the examination scoring 542 marks and secured a

category rank of 176. It may be stated that the cut-

off marks for these subcategories were 143 -127.

Having made the cut-off for the SC/PwBD category

with flying colours, the petitioner staked his rightful

claim for the next stage which requires the issuance

of a Certificate of Disability for NEET Admissions

(“NEET Disability Certificate”) by a designated

‘Disability Certification Centre’. Accordingly, the

petitioner approached the Vardhman Mahavir

Medical College-Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi (for

short “VMMC-SJ Hospital”) for medical assessment.

Even though, the VMMC -SJ Hospital assessed the

petitioner’s disability at 68%, it concluded that under

4

the NMC/MCI guidelines, the petitioner was not

entitled to pursue the medical courses. The

conclusions drawn by the certifying body in the

certificate dated 19

th

August, 2024, are reproduced

below for ready reference:-

“Conclusion: Based on quantification of

disability The candidate is not eligible to

pursue medical courses (as per NMC

norms).

Remark: BILATERAL UPEER (sic) LIMB

INVOLVEMENT

The Disability Certification Board certifies

that the candidate is not eligible for

admission in Medical/Dental courses and

to avail 5% PwD reservation as per the

NMC/MCI Gazette Notification.”

4. Aggrieved by his disqualification from admission

in the MBBS course on the ground of benchmark

disabilities, despite standing high in merit, the

petitioner approached the High Court of Delhi by

filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12165 of 2024.

5. The learned Single Bench of the High Court

directed the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences,

New Delhi to constitute a Board of three experts to

reassess the petitioner’s disabilities and to give an

opinion as to whether the petitioner would be able to

pursue medical courses and perform as a Doctor. In

compliance, the petitioner was subjected to

reassessment by the Medical Board constituted at

AIIMS, New Delhi and the report was submitted to the

learned Single Judge, who upon perusal thereof,

concluded that the petitioner was ineligible to pursue

5

medical courses. Accordingly, the writ petition was

dismissed vide order dated 10

th

September, 2024.

6. The petitioner assailed the decision of the

learned Single Judge by filing Letters Patent Appeal

No. 967 of 2024. The Division Bench of the High Court

of Delhi passed an order dated 27

th

September, 2024,

and directed a fresh evaluation of the petitioner’s

disabilities by a newly constituted medical Board. The

three-member medical Board constituted at the

AIIMS reiterated the conclusions of the earlier Medical

Board and again declared the petitioner ineligible to

pursue the medical courses as per the prevailing NMC

norms. Upon receiving the report, the learned

Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide impugned

judgment dated 12

th

November, 2024, endorsed the

view of the board and dismissed the Letters Patent

Appeal preferred by the petitioner. The said judgment

is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

7. Mr. Rahul Bajaj, learned counsel representing

the petitioner, contended that the impugned

judgment and the decisions of both the medical

Boards are inherently flawed inasmuch as neither the

medical authorities nor the High Court duly adverted

to the crucial concepts of assistive devices and

reasonable accommodation to which the petitioner is

entitled, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Act, 2016 (for short ‘Act of 2016’). The vital factors,

i.e., the academic excellence of the petitioner, his

performance in the NEET examination, the high

placement in merit, were totally glossed over while

denying relief to the petitioner. Shri Bajaj relied upon

the judgments of this Court in Om Rathod v.

Director General of Health Sciences, 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 4283 and Anmol v. Union of India &

Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387 , to urge that the

salutary principles provided under Article 41 of the

6

Constitution of India read with the Act of 2016 clearly

entitle the petitioner to seek medical education as

both these judgments expressly recognize the

concepts of assistive devices and reasonable

accommodation. By availing these moderations as

provided under the decisions of this Court, the

petitioner would be well equipped to perform his

duties as a Doctor.

8. Learned counsel submitted that in the case of

Om Rathod (supra), despite the fact that the

candidate was not having both hands, he was held

entitled to undergo the MBBS course pursuant to an

assessment made by Dr. Satendra Singh, a specialist

in the field.

9. Learned counsel submitted that Dr. Satendra

Singh, while undertaking the functional assessment

of the candidate Shri Om Rathod posed four

questions for assessing his ability to undergo MBBS

course and concluded that all the questions had to be

answered in negative. The relevant excerpt from Om

Rathod’s judgment is quoted below: -

“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 clinic al

7

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

d) Would the proposed accommodation pose

an undue hardship on the medical college

(budgets wise)? Not in my opinion”

10. In his report, Dr. Satendra Singh quoted that the

father of Neurosurgery Harvey Cushing emphasized

way back in 1912 that motor skills are often the least

important part of the work.

11. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner in

the case of Anmol (supra) was suffering from

locomotor disability assessed at 50% with club foot

right lower limb and Phocomelia (a congenital defect

which causes severe limb shortening or loss of long

bones), in left middle ring finger through middle

phalanx with right middle ind ex finger through

middle phalanx. The candidate also suffered from

speech and language disability assessed at 20%.

8

12. Mr. Bajaj contended that the petitioner herein is

having much better physical/locomotor attributes

and is well equipped as compared to the two

candidates in the cases of Anmol (supra) and Om

Rathod (supra). He also scored much higher marks

than these candidates in NEET (UG) examination

2024-2025. Anmol had obtained rank 2462 in the

PwD category, whereas the petitioner herein secured

176 rank and thus, he is much better placed than the

candidates in the above-referred cases.

13. He submitted that the assessment made by the

medical Board of the petitioner’s capability to take the

medical degree course and his disqualification on the

anvil of NMC norms is illegal and unsustainable in

view of the law laid down by this Court in th e

judgments referred to supra.

14. He, therefore, urged that a direction deserves to

be issued to have a reassessment done of the

petitioner through Dr. Satyendra Singh on the ratio of

the above referred judgments and to mandate the

respondents to grant admission and accommodate

the petitioner in the MBBS (UG) Course 2024-2025.

15. Relying upon the order dated 17

th

April, 2023,

passed in the case of Vibhushita Sharma v. Union

of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.793 of 2022, learned

counsel submitted that in case, this Court is not

inclined to grant admission to the petitioner in the

2024-2025 MBBS Degree course, a suitable direction

deserves to be issued to the respondents to admit the

petitioner in the academic session 2025-2026 treating

him to be NEET (UG) qualified.

16. Per contra, learned counsel representing the

Union of India and National Medical Commission

urged that the Commission is under the process of

9

revising its guidelines in compliance with the

judgments in the cases of Om Rathod (supra) and

Anmol (supra). Three meetings have already taken

place, and the process is expected to be finalised

before counselling for the next academic session

commences. They thus, urged that the petitioner will

not be prejudiced, if the consideration of this matter

is deferred till the new guidelines are put in place.

17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to

the submissions advanced at bar and have gone

through the material placed on record.

18. Prima facie, we find substance in the submission

of the learned counsel representing the respondents

that the process for revising the guidelines in terms of

this Court’s decisions (supra) is underway and a final

outcome is expected before the counselling session for

MBBS (UG) 2025-2026 commences. However, we are

not inclined to defer the proceedings at this stage.

19. Denying relief to the petitioner on this premise

would be totally unjustified in view of the ratio of this

Court’s judgments in Om Rathod (supra) and Anmol

(supra). Merely because the NMC is under the process

of revising the guidelines, the petitioner’s fate cannot

be allowed to hang in a limbo in spite of the fact that

he has performed exceedingly well in the NEET (UG)

2024 examination and stood high in the merit in his

category.

20. In view of the above, we hereby direct that a fresh

Medical Board shall be constituted at the All-India

Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi comprising

of five Doctors/specialists. One of the Board members

shall be a specialist in locomotor disabilities and one

member shall be a Neuro-Physician.

10

21. The petitioner shall be intimated a suitable date

for assessment by the Board within the next seven

days. He shall appear before the Board on the

appointed date whereupon the Board shall undertake

a fresh assessment of the petitioner’s disabilities with

due deference to the ratio of this Court’s judgments

in Om Rathod (supra) and Anmol (supra). The

Board’s report shall be forwarded to this Court in a

sealed cover on or before 15

th

April, 2025.”

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the appellant

was subjected to extensive review assessment by a

Medical Board constituted at the All-India Institute of

Medical Sciences, New Delhi (for short ‘AIIMS, New

Delhi’). The report dated 24

th April, 2025 has been

forwarded by the Medical Board, which is reproduced

hereinbelow for the sake of convenience: -

“Subject: Report of the medical board constituted at

AIIMS for medical examination of petitioner Sh. Kabir

Paharia in compliance of order dated 02.04.2025,

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi (Section-

XIV)vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29275 of

2024 titled Kabir Paharia Versus National Medical

Commission & Others.

*****************************

11

With reference to the aforementioned subject,

the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, New Delhi

constituted a Medical Board consisting of the

following members:-

1. Dr. S.L. Yadav - Chairperson

Professor, Deptt. of P.M.R.

2. Dr. Suman Jain - Member

Professor, Deptt. of Physiology

3. Dr. Divya M.R. - Member

Assoc. Professor, Deptt. of Neurology

4. Dr. Arun Kumar Choudhary - Member

Asstt. Professor, Deptt. of PMR

5. Dr. Sahil Batra - Member

Asstt. Professor, Deptt. of Orthopaedics

6. Dr. Veeranna B. - Member Secy.

Department of Hospital Administration

The meeting of the Medical Board was held on

16.04.2024 (Wednesday) at 11:00 A.M. in the

Seminar Room, Room No. 01, Ground floor, PMR

OPD, Department of PMR, AIIMS, New Delhi. The

available reports, earlier disability certificates and

medical documents were reviewed. The petitioner Sh.

Kabir Paharia was present and was examined by the

members of the Medical Board. The second board

meeting was held on 22

nd

April 2025 at 11:00 AM in

the SET facility convergence block, AIIMS, New Delhi.

Mr. Kabir Paharia underwent a comprehensive

neurological examination as part of the Medical Board

assessment. It was observed that Mr. Kabir has a

12

significant absence of multiple digits in both hands

(specifically, the index and middle fingers on the right

hand, and the index, middle, and ring fingers on the

left hand) as well as in the left foot (notably, the

second and third toes), which is attributed to a birth

complication as documented in the available medical

records. His condition is deemed non-progressive,

and the locomotor disability is classified as

permanent. The neurological examination showed

normal strength in the existing limbs and digits, with

intact sensations and good coordination of the

existing limbs and digits.

He was asked to demonstrate various skilled

techniques in the simulation laboratory, including

chest compressions, intravenous cannulation,

assembly of a laryngoscope, intubation, and suturing,

all of which he executed satisfactorily. He

demonstrated functional adaptation using his

existing digits during these tasks. However, the board

observed that he faced minor challenges while

attempting to put on the sterilized standard gloves.

He had slight coordination problems and delays

caused by the lack of fingers and empty finger slots in

the gloves. An evaluation by an occupational

therapist validated his independence in activities of

daily living (ADLs).”

6. A careful perusal of the above report makes it

amply clear that the appellant successfully

demonstrated skilled techniques in the simulation

laboratory including chest compressions, intravenous

13

cannulation, assembly of a laryngoscope, intubation

and suturing. The Medical Board, in its report,

observed that the appellant demonstrated the

functional adaptation using his existing digits during

these tasks. The only minor challenge , which the

appellant faced during the entire procedure, was

putting on the sterilized standard gloves.

7. We feel that the mindset must change and this

trivial aberration, by no stretch of imagination, can be

a ground to deny admission to the appellant in the

MBBS UG course, when he is otherwise qualified and

scored exceeding high rank in the NEET-UG 2024.

8. As per the result of NEET-UG 2024, the appellant

secured an All-India Rank of 147946. His Scheduled

Caste category rank was 7252, and his PwBD category

rank was 176. The appellant has also submitted details

14

of the provisional NEET-UG 2024 counselling seat

allotment (Round 1), according to which a candidate

with Roll No. 14491, who ranked 159816, was allocated

a seat at AIIMS, New Delhi under the Scheduled Castes

PwBD category. Apparently thus, a candidate who stood

much below the appellant in merit has been admitted

against the reserved seat at the AIIMS, New Delhi to

which the appellant had a valid claim.

9. Manifestly, in view of the observations made by us

in the order dated 2

nd April, 2025 and the consequent

successful assessment of the appellant by the Medical

Board, AIIMS, New Delhi vide report dated 24

th April,

2025, the denial of admission to the appellant in the

MBBS UG course was grossly illegal, arbitrary and

violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights as

guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

15

of India. Such action not only reflects institutional bias

and systemic discrimination but also undermines the

principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination

enshrined in our constitutional framework. The

constitutional mandate of substantive equality

demands that person with disabilities (for short ‘PwD’)

and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations

rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based

on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities.

10. On the previous date of hearing, we had sought a

response from the learned counsel representing the

respondents regarding the appellant's submission that

the candidate who secured a rank lower than the

appellant had been granted admission against the

Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the MBBS UG course

at AIIMS, New Delhi, for the academic year 2024–2025.

16

11. Today, during the course of hearing, Ms. Archana

Pathak Dave, learned ASG, on instructions, fairly

affirms this assertion of the appellant. She further

states that as the appellant has been successfully

assessed by the Medical Board constituted at AIIMS,

New Delhi, he can be afforded admission in MBBS UG

course against the Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the

AIIMS, New Delhi in the forthcoming counselling

session of 2025-2026.

12. Taking consideration of the fact that the 2024-

2025 academic session must have progressed

significantly and thus it would not be expedient to grant

admission to the appellant in the said session. We

accordingly direct that the appellant shall be allocated

a seat in the MBBS UG course 2025 against the

Scheduled Castes PwBD quota in the All-India Institute

17

of Medical Science, New Delhi, in the forthcoming

academic session.

13. In backdrop of the factual matrix narrated supra

and the comparative higher merit secured by the

appellant in the NEET-UG 2024 examination, we make

it clear that the appellant shall not be required to

undergo the NEET-UG 2025 examination.

14. We further direct that the National Medical

Commission shall forthwith and not later than within a

period of two months from today and at any cost before

the counselling for the 2025-2026 session commence,

complete the process of revising the guidelines in light

of judgments of this Court in Om Rathod v. Director

General of Health Sciences

2 and Anmol v. Union of

India & Ors.

3 so that no deserving candidate in the

2

2024 SCC OnLine SC 4283.

3

2025 SCC OnLine SC 387.

18

PwBD category is denied admission into the MBBS

course in spite of his/her/their entitlement. It must be

ensured that systemic discrimination against persons

with benchmark disabilities, whether direct or indirect,

is eliminated and that the admission process upholds

their right to equal opportunity and dignity.

15. The constitutional promise of equality is not

merely formal but substantive, requiring the State to

take affirmative measures to ensure that PwD and

PwBD can meaningfully participate in all spheres of life,

including professional education. We emphasize that

reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity

but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16,

and 21 of our Constitution. When administrative

authorities create arbitrary barriers that exclude

qualified PwBD candidates, they not only violate

19

statutory provisions but also perpetuate the historical

injustice and stigmatisation. The fundamental rights

and the dignity of PwD and PwBD candidates must be

protected by ensuring that assessment of their

capabilities is individualised, evidence-based, and free

from stereotypical assumptions that have no scientific

foundation.

16. Before parting, we express our wholehearted

appreciation for Mr. Rahul Bajaj and Mr. Amar Jain,

learned counsel, both persons with benchmark

disability (zero vision), for the excellent assistance

provided by them during the course of hearing of the

present matter. We also express our sincere

appreciation to Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior

counsel, for his pro bono services and Ms. Archana

20

Pathak Dave, learned ASG, for her pragmatic approach

in the matter.

17. The impugned order dated 12

th November, 2024,

passed by the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent

Appeal No. 967 of 2024 is set aside.

18. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in

these terms. No order as to costs.

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

….……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH )

...…………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 02, 2025.