Supreme Court Calls 'Both Hands Intact' Rule for MBBS Admissions Discriminatory
The Supreme Court ruled that excluding a candidate from the ballot box solely because of a physical disability is a violation of constitutional guarantees and international conventions relating to the rights persons with disabilities.
Supreme Court Calls 'Both Hands Intact' Rule for MBBS Admissions Discriminatory
The Supreme Court strongly criticised on Friday the National Medical Commission (NMC) regulations that require candidates to have both hands intact to qualify for medical education. It called it a glorification "ableism", which contradicts the principles enshrined by law of reasonable accommodation and inclusion.
It is a broad classification that glorifies ableism. It promotes the idea that people with abilities similar to those of the majority are somehow superior. The directive principles of the state policy, the United Nations Convention, and the RPwD Act (Rights of Persons with Disabilities) all condemn this.
The court ruled that excluding a candidate solely on the basis of physical disability is a violation of constitutional rights and international conventions protecting the rights persons with disabilities. The court ruled that the NMC's requirement of "both hands with intact sensations and sufficient strength, range of motion, and enough strength" unfairly bar individuals with upper-limb disabilities from pursuing a medical education despite their ability to be competent doctors with reasonable accommodation.
The court ruled that an aspiring physician with a disability of 58% was eligible to enroll in an MBBS program. It also called on the NMC to update its outdated guidelines.
These stipulate that candidates must be able to move their hands freely and with strength. The petitioner who scored highly in the NEET UG 2024 exam in the PwD category was deemed unqualified by the disability board despite being able to perform clinically essential functions.
The top court rejected the reasoning, noting the assessment panel had failed to conduct an adequate functional evaluation and that it was "shackled by" the rigid rule "both hands intact". The court ruled that this exclusionary rule was not legal and incompatible with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD), 2016, which places more emphasis on functional evaluations than blanket disqualifications.
