W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 1 of 18

$~1-2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

# CNR No. DLHC010398242026

Date of decision: 24.09.2026

+ W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & CM APPL. 57327/2026

AASHIYA

.....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Sarah, Adv.

versus

NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION THROUGH ITS

SECRETARY & ORS.

.....Respondent

Through: Ms. Parul Mehra, Adv, GP for R3

Mr. Amit Meharia, Mr. Abinash Agarwal, Mrs.

Priya Sachin Bhalerao and Mr. Shashwat Roy,

Advocates for R1

Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Adv. (CGSC)

Ms. Usha Jamnal, Adv. ⁠Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Siddhant Nagar, Adv Mr. Abhinav Mall, Adv

Ms. Nishtha Dhall, Adv for UOI/R2&5

2

# CNR No. DLHC010402832026

+ W.P.(C) 12499/2026 & CM APPL. 57918/2026

SHIVAM KUMAR

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr Arpit Bhargava with Mr Sarthak

Sharma, Ms Hina Bhargava and Ms Astha Sharma,

Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Deepansh Sharma (G.P), Mr.

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 2 of 18

Bhavesh Adv. for UOI

Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Adv. (CGSC)

Ms. Usha Jamnal, Adv. ⁠Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Siddhant Nagar, Adv Mr. Abhinav Mall, Adv

Ms. Nishtha Dhall, Adv for UOI/R1&3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

: JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL)

1. These are writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking the following respective prayers:-

“W.P.(C) 12368/2026

A. Set aside the Eligibility Certificate dated 05.08.2026

issued by Respondent No. 4 to the Petitioner, and the

decision/communication of Respondent No. 5 dated

14.08.2026 rejecting the Petitioner's appeal;

B. Declare the Petitioner eligible to pursue MBBS on the

basis of her NEET (UG) 2026 score and her Disability

Certificate/UDID Card dated 11.06.2022;

C. Hold and declare that the re-quantification of the

Petitioner's disability conducted by Respondent Nos. 4

and 5 is ultra vires the Guidelines dated 27.07.2026 (as

amended by the Addendum dated 05.08.2026) issued by

Respondent No. 1;

D. Direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to keep a seat

reserved for the Petitioner under the PwBD category and

permit her to participate in the ongoing/subsequent

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 3 of 18

rounds of NEET (UG) 2026 counselling, pending disposal

of this petition;

E. Grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000

(Rupees One Lakh only) to the Petitioner owing to the

callous approach of the Respondents;

W.P.(C) 12499/2026

a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including

a writ of Certiorari, to quash and set aside the

assessment/certificate dated 07.08.2026 issued by the

Medical Assessment Board of Respondent No.2; and/or

b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including

a writ of Certiorari, to quash and set aside the medical

opinion/assessment and Eligibility Certificate dated

14.08.2026 issued by the Appellate Medical PwBD

Assessment Board of Respondent No.3; and/or

c. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing

the Respondent No.1 to restore the Petitioner's

candidature under the Persons with Benchmark

Disabilities (PwBD) category in the NEET UG 2026

counselling process, on the basis of his valid

Government-issued Disability Certificate and UDID

Card recording 60% permanent disability; and/or

d. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing

the Respondent No.2 and/or Respondent No.3 to provide

eligibility certificate to the Petitioner recording 60%

permanent disability on the basis of his valid

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 4 of 18

Government-issued Disability Certificate and UDID

Card;…”

2. The facts in W.P.(C) 12368/2026 are almost identical to those in

W.P.(C) 12499/2026. For convenience, the facts of W.P.(C)

12499/2026 are set out below and the points of difference in the other

petition are noted separately.

3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 12499/2026 is an 18-year-old candidate with

a permanent visual disability. By a Disability Certificate dated

28.12.2024, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with

Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government

of India, certified his permanent disability at 60%. A UDID card of the

same date was issued to him recording the disability and its extent.

4. The petitioner’s NEET (UG) 2026 admit card dated 14.06.2026

recorded his disability as blindness and granted him compensatory

time. He appeared in the examination on 21.06.2026. The result was

declared on 16.07.2026, and he secured 398 out of 720 marks with a

PwBD rank of 409.

5. The Guidelines on Assessment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities

for Admission to the MBBS Course, 2026, dated 27.07.2026 (“the

Guidelines”), prescribe a separate assessment for PwBD candidates. By

a Notice dated 30.07.2026, the Medical Counselling Committee

(respondent No. 1) required such candidates to appear before a

designated Medical Assessment Board for an Eligibility Certificate.

6. The petitioner appeared with his UDID card before the Medical

Assessment Board at Lady Hardinge Medical College (respondent No.

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 5 of 18

2). By an assessment/certificate dated 07.08.2026, the Board assessed

his disability at 30%, while noting that his UDID card recorded 60%.

The Board nevertheless certified that he is eligible to pursue the MBBS

course, is capable of undertaking it, and would not pose a threat to

patients.

7. The petitioner then filed a complaint before the Court of the Chief

Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Case No. CCPD-AD-

0152/2026). By an order dated 12.08.2026, the Chief Commissioner

directed that he be permitted to participate in the ongoing counselling

on the strength of his valid UDID card, subject to the final outcome of

the disability assessment proceedings. The Chief Commissioner also

observed that he could avail the appellate remedy provided under the

Guidelines, and that if doubt persisted, the matter could be referred to

an independent and neutral Medical Board.

8. The Appellate Medical PwBD Assessment Board at Vardhman

Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital (respondent no. 3)

concurred with the earlier assessment. By an Eligibility Certificate

dated 14.08.2026, it recorded his disability at 30% and again found him

capable of undertaking the course. On the same day, his candidature

was shifted from the PwBD category to the General category. The

petitioner states that he was thereby deprived of Round 1 of counselling

under the PwBD category, the result of which was declared on

21.08.2026, and that Round 2 was to begin on 24.08.2026.

9. In W.P.(C) 12368/2026, the petitioner has a permanent locomotor

disability of 61%, recorded in a Disability Certificate and UDID card

dated 11.06.2022 issued by the Issuing Medical Authority, North East,

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 6 of 18

Delhi. She appeared in NEET (UG) 2026 under the General-PwBD

category and secured 363 out of 720 marks (81.18 percentile), with a

PwBD rank of 638. The Primary Disability Assessment Medical Board

re-quantified her disability at 16% on 05.08.2026 and declared her

ineligible for PwBD reservation.

10. The Appellate Disability Assessment Board constituted for Delhi

pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in M.A. No. 378/2025

in Civil Appeal No. 14333/2024 (Anmol v. Union of India & Ors.),

confirmed the figure of 16% by an Eligibility Certificate dated

14.08.2026. She too could not participate in Round 1 of counselling.

She seeks to set aside the Eligibility Certificate, a declaration that she is

eligible to pursue MBBS on the basis of her UDID card, and permission

to participate in the ongoing and subsequent rounds of counselling.

11. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the UDID card is the

primary document, and that the Medical Assessment Board is required

only to make a functional assessment and has no power to reassess the

percentage of disability.

12. Learned counsels for the respondents draw my attention to the

guidelines on assessment of persons with benchmark disabilities for

admission to MBBS Course, 2026 dated 27.07.2026 and more

particularly Clauses 9.2 and 9.3 which read as under:-

“9.2 Every such candidate shall possess a valid

Permanent Unique Disability Identity (UDID) Card

issued through the UDID Portal by the Department of

Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan),

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 7 of 18

Government of India. The UDID Card shall serve as the

primary documentary evidence of the existence, nature

and extent of the specified disability for the purposes of

these Guidelines.

9.3 While the particulars recorded in the Permanent

UDID Card, including the category, percentage and

validity of the specified disability, shall ordinarily form

the basis of consideration by the Medical Assessment

Board, the Board shall independently determine the

candidate's functional competency in accordance with

these Guidelines. The determination of eligibility shall

not be based solely upon the category or percentage of

disability recorded in the UDID Card.”

13. The respondents contend that, under the Guidelines, they are entitled to

determine the functional competency of the petitioners, and that the

reduction in the percentage of disability was made in the course of that

exercise.

14. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

15. The Clause 3.9 of the above said guideline read as under:-

“3.9 "Functional Competency" means the demonstrated

ability of a candidate, with or without reasonable

accommodation or assistive technology, to acquire and

perform the essential competencies required under the

Competency Based Medical Education curriculum.”

16. Additionally, Clause 2.4 and 6.1 read as under:-

“2.4 These Guidelines introduce a competency-based and

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 8 of 18

function-oriented assessment framework, whereby the

determination of eligibility shall not rest solely upon the

numerical percentage or category of disability reflected in

the UDID Card or other disability certification. While the

benchmark disability prescribed under the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 shall continue to

determine eligibility for reservation under the PwBD

category, admission to the MBBS Course shall be based

upon an objective evaluation of the candidate's functional

competencies, with due regard to reasonable

accommodation, assistive technology, environmental

accessibility and contemporary advances in rehabilitation

science.

. . . .

6. Statutory Framework

6.1. These Guidelines shall be read in conjunction with-

(a) the National Medical Commission Act, 2019;

(b) the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016;

(c) the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, as

amended from time to time;

(d) the Notification dated 12th March, 2024 issued by the

Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities

(Divyangjan), Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment;

(e) all applicable Regulations, Guidelines, Notifications and

Circulars issued by the National Medical Commission from

time to time; and

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 9 of 18

(f) all binding judgments, directions and orders of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and other competent

Courts governing admission of Persons with Benchmark

Disabilities to the MBBS Course.”

17. A combined reading of these provisions shows that eligibility for

reservation under the PwBD category is determined by the benchmark

disability prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,

2016 (“the RPwD Act”). The UDID card issued under the Act is

therefore the primary document for that purpose.

18. Clauses 9.2 and 9.3 of the Guidelines permit the Medical Assessment

Board to assess a candidate’s functional competency, that is, whether

the candidate can complete the MBBS curriculum and thereafter

undertake the profession of medicine. They do not empower the Board

to revisit the percentage of disability recorded in the UDID card.

19. In W.P.(C) 12499/2026, both the Medical Assessment Board and the

Appellate Board certified the petitioner as eligible to pursue the MBBS

course, capable of undertaking it, and not a threat to patients. The

operative portion of the functional competency assessment reads as

under:

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 10 of 18

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 11 of 18

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 12 of 18

20. The same was affirmed by the appellate authority. A perusal of these

opinions shows that the petitioners were considered functionally

competent to pursue the course and the profession. However, the

Medical Boards held them ineligible for PwBD reservation on the

ground that their disability, as re-assessed by the Boards, fell below the

40% threshold required for reservation. In my view, the role of the

Medical Board is confined to assessing the functional competency of

the candidate. It cannot interfere with the disability recorded in the

UDID card.

21. The same is in line with the RPwD Act and more particularly Sections

56, 57 and 59 which read as under:-

“56. The Central Government shall notify guidelines for

the purpose of assessing the extent of specified disability in

a person.

57. (1) The appropriate Government shall designate

persons, having requisite qualifications and experience, as

certifying authorities, who shall be competent to issue the

certificate of disability.

(2) The appropriate Government shall also notify the

jurisdiction within which and the terms and conditions

subject to which, the certifying authority shall perform its

certification functions.

…

59. (1) Any person aggrieved with decision of the

certifying authority, may appeal against such decision,

within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 13 of 18

by the State Government, to such appellate authority as the

State Government may designate for the purpose.

(2) On receipt of an appeal, the appellate authority shall

decide the appeal in such manner as may be prescribed by

the State Government.”

22. These provisions show that the UDID card has primacy. If any of the

respondents is aggrieved by the UDID card, the remedy is to appeal

against the decision of the certifying authority. It is not open to a

Medical Assessment Board to disregard or reduce the recorded

percentage at the stage of admission.

23. The same is also contained in the rule, 17, 18 and 19 of the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 which read as under:-

“17. Application for certificate of disability.- (1) Any

person with specified disability may apply in Form IV for a

certificate of disability and submit the application to-

(a) a medical authority or any other notified

competent authority to issue such a certificate in the

district of residence of the applicant as mentioned in

the proof of residence in the application; or

(b) the concerned medical authority in a government

hospital where he may be undergoing or may have

undergone treatment in connection with his disability:

Provided that where a person with disability is a

minor or suffering from intellectual disability or any other

disability which renders him unfit or unable to make such an

application himself, the application on his behalf may be

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 14 of 18

made by his legal guardian or by any organisation

registered under the Act having the minor under its care.

(2) The application shall be accompanied by-

(a) proof of residence;

(b) two recent passport size photographs; and

(c) aadhaar number or aadhaar enrollment number, if

any.

Note. No other proof of residence shall be demanded

from the applicant who has aadhaar or aadhaar

enrollment number.

18. Issue of certificate of disability. (1) On receipt of an

application under Rule 17, the medical authority or any

other notified competent authority shall, verify the

information as provided by the applicant and shall assess

the disability in terms of the relevant guidelines issued by

the Central Government and after satisfying himself that the

applicant is a person with disability, issue a certificate of

disability in his favour in Form V, VI and VII, as the case

may be.

(2) The medical authority shall issue the certificate of

disability within a month from the date of receipt of

the application.

(3) The medical authority shall, after due

examination-

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 15 of 18

(i) issue a permanent certificate of disability in cases

where there are no chances of variation of disability

over time in the degree of disability: or

(ii) issue a certificate of disability indicating the

period of validity, in cases where there is any chance

of variation over time in the degree of disability.

(4) If an applicant is found ineligible for issue of

certificate of disability. the medical authority shall

convey the reasons to him in writing under Form VIII

within a period of one month from the date of receipt

of the application.

(5) The State Government and Union territory

Administration shall ensure that the certificate of

disability is granted on online platform from such

date as may be notified by the Central Government.

19. Certificate issued under Rule 18 to be generally valid

for all purposes. -A person to whom the certificate issued

under Rule 18 shall be entitled to apply for facilities,

concessions and benefits admissible for persons with

disabilities under schemes of the Government and of non-

Governmental organizations funded by the Government.”

24. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Rathod v.

Director General of Health Services, (2024) 19 SCC 70, at paragraphs

68 and 69, are also relevant and are reproduced as under:-

“68. We have noted above that Disability Assessment

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 16 of 18

Boards must comply with rule of law principles by injecting

transparency, fairness and consistency in their approach.

The Boards must further elaborate on 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.

69. The disability of a person is quantified at the time of

availing a Unique Disability ID Card. 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

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 17 of 18

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.”

25. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules, Sections and the Judgment clearly

show that the role of the Medical Assessment Board is only to consider

the functional competency of a candidate and not to interfere with the

percentage given in the UDID card. If the same is permitted, then the

UDID card issued, by the authorities will become mere paper

formalities and would be meaningless. The same is not the mandate of

the RPwD Act.

26. For these reasons, the assessment/certificate dated 07.08.2026 of the

Medical Assessment Board and the Eligibility Certificate dated

14.08.2026 of the Appellate Board in W.P.(C) 12499/2026, and the

order dated 05.08.2026 of the Primary Disability Assessment Medical

Board and the Eligibility Certificate dated 14.08.2026 of the Appellate

Disability Assessment Board in W.P.(C) 12368/2026, are set aside.

27. Since Rounds 1 and 2 of counselling are over, the respondents shall

permit the petitioners to participate in the third round and the mop-up

round, if any, in accordance with their rank and entitlement under the

PwBD category, treating their disability as recorded in their respective

UDID cards.

28. The petitioners have also requested that supernumerary seats be created

for them. I am not inclined to grant this relief. The Court is conscious

that the petitioners could not participate in the first two rounds under

the PwBD category. However, seats have already been allotted in those

W.P.(C) 12368/2026 & W.P.(C) 12499/2026 Page 18 of 18

rounds, and the petitioners are being permitted to participate in the third

round and the mop-up round, if available. In Om Rathod (supra),

counselling had already come to an end, and there was no remaining

round in which the petitioners could be accommodated. That is not the

position here.

29. The writ petitions are allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

JASMEET SINGH, J

SEPTEMBER 24, 2026 / (MS)

(corrected and released on 25.09.2026.)