Norms are meant to be changed with time. A backward thinking is dangerous, but a backward society is worse. In India, a country with many different laws, and privileges for everyone, there are some who are left out. It was seen when Shrikanth fought for his rights and now when Anmol is doing the same for his rights.

Abstract

Anmol, an Indian student with disabilities who was ruled out of joining any medical field even with high ranking and great marks under his quota, was unsatisfied and filled with justice went to a legal battle for his rights. The Supreme court after hearing his plea, and with intense intensity ruled in his favour, ordering a new change in this Modern India. This win represents a significant breakthrough in ensuring equal educational opportunities for disabled students, particularly in the medical field.

This case challenged the rigid and discriminatory guidelines set by the National Medical Commission (NMC), which previously barred individuals with certain disabilities from pursuing medical education. The Court’s decision to strike down the controversial “both hands intact” requirement has paved the way for a more inclusive and functional approach to assessing disabled candidates.

This article examines the background of the case, the arguments presented by both sides, the Supreme Court’s reasoning behind its judgment, and the broader implications for disability rights in education and employment.

Background of the Case

The case started when Anmol, an intelligent student in the medical field with a disability in one hand, was denied admission to an MBBS program due to the NMC’s guidelines, which required candidates to have "both hands intact." Despite Anmol’s high grade academic qualifications and functional capability, he was deemed ineligible solely based on his disability.

Anmol even though was allowed to give exams, and under pwD quota, even got good marks. His admission was denied not on the basis of his marks but his disability, due to the NMC guidelines.

The guidelines surrounding this controversy are the NMC’s 2019 guidelines, which classified various disabilities and their respective eligibility criteria for medical education. According to these guidelines, individuals with upper limb disabilities exceeding a certain percentage were automatically disqualified, regardless of their actual ability to perform medical tasks. This rigid framework ignored advances in assisting technology and the ability of individuals with disabilities to adapt and function effectively.

Feeling that this policy was discriminatory, Anmol filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of these guidelines and arguing that they violated one of his fundamental rights.

Legal Framework and Petitioner’s Arguments

Anmol’s legal team made several compelling arguments, focusing on constitutional rights, statutory protections, and international legal obligations.

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights

Anmol argued that the NMC’s guidelines violated:

• Article 14 (Right to Equality) - The policy discriminated against individuals with disabilities by imposing wrong and unnecessary restrictions on their eligibility for medical education. The Court has consistently held that laws must pass the test of reasonability and should not importantly and tyrannically exclude an entire class of people.
• Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination) - Anmol team, contended that rejecting students based on disability alone amounted to discrimination, similar to race, caste, or gender-based discrimination, which is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
• Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity) - The right to livelihood is an integral part of Article 21. Denying an otherwise qualified student the opportunity to pursue a career in medicine solely due to disability infringe upon their right to a dignified life.

2. Conflict with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016

The RPwD Act, 2016 is a law that protects and promotes the rights of persons with disabilities in India. The Act ensures reasonable accommodations, mandates non-discrimination, and recognizes education as a fundamental right for persons with disabilities. The NMC’s guidelines, which imposed these restrictions without individualized assessments, were in clear violation of this law.

3. Unreasonable and Outdated Nature of NMC’s Guidelines

Lawyer of Anmol emphasized that modern medical education and practice have evolved significantly, and many tasks can be performed using some kind of assistance intended for technology, adapted techniques, or teamwork. The “both hands intact” rule was not based on any functional or scientific assessment but rather on outdated and ableist notions about disability.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Union of India and the NMC defended their guidelines by presenting the following counterarguments:

1. Ensuring Patient Safety

The NMC argued that medical students must meet certain physical standards to ensure patient safety. They claimed that some disabilities could impair a doctor’s ability to perform procedures effectively, which in return only endanger patients.

2. Standardization of Medical Education

The government added that the practice of medical training required students to meet minimum physical criteria. They argued that altering the guidelines would create inconsistencies in medical education, making it difficult to assess students' competencies objectively.

Supreme Court’s Judgment and Reasoning

After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Anmol, striking down the discriminatory clauses in the NMC guidelines. The Court’s reasoning was based on several key principles:

1. Functional Assessment Over Rigid Criteria

The Court emphasized that eligibility should be determined by a functional assessment rather than the physical requirements. Instead of an automatic disqualification, medical aspirants with disabilities should be evaluated based on their ability to perform medical tasks using assisting devices or new adaptive techniques.

2. Overturning Ableist Practices

The Court criticized the NMC’s belief as outdated and filled with ableist policies, stating that such practices reinforce stereotypes and systematically exclude persons with disabilities from professional fields. It called for a change in modern times, and to shift from exclusion to accommodation.

3. Alignment with Constitutional and International Obligations

The judgment reinforced India’s commitment to global disability rights frameworks, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which India signed in 2007. The Court stressed that India must align its policies with these international obligations by promoting inclusivity in education and employment.

4. Similar Policies from Other Jurisdictions

The Court drew comparisons to progressive policies in other countries, such as:

• United States (ADA Compliance) - In the U.S.A, medical schools must provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Candidates are assessed based on their ability to perform with or without assistive devices.
• United Kingdom (Equality Act, 2010) - The UK mandates that educational institutions accommodate disabled students unless a disability poses an actual risk to patient safety. Direct bans are not allowed.
• Canada (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) - Canada follows a similar principle, ensuring that students with disabilities are provided reasonable adjustments in their professional training.

By highlighting these examples, the Court reaffirmed the need for India’s medical education policies to evolve and move towards a disability-inclusive framework.

Impact and Broader Implications

The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching consequences:

1. Policy Reforms in Medical Education

The verdict compels the NMC and medical institutions to revise their guidelines and implement functional assessments instead of only physical criteria. This will enable many disabled students to enter and thrive in the medical profession.

2. Setting an Example for Other Professions

The ruling is likely to influence other fields where similar discriminatory practices exist. Sectors such as engineering, law enforcement, and aviation may now be required to reassess their criteria for disabled individuals.

3. Strengthening the RPwD Act, 2016

The judgment reinforces the principles of the RPwD Act by ensuring that reasonable accommodations are a legal requirement, not a choice. Institutions that fail to comply may face legal consequences.

4. Encouraging Assistive Technology in Medical Practice

By recognizing the role of assistive technology and adaptive methods, the judgment encourages innovations that will make medicine more accessible for people with disabilities.

Criticism and Challenges

While the ruling is widely celebrated, some concerns remain:

1. Implementation Issues - Ensuring that medical colleges comply with the ruling requires strict monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
2. Resistance from Traditionalists - Some medical professionals and policymakers still argue that certain disabilities could limit a doctor’s effectiveness.
3. Practical Training Adjustments - Institutions will need to redesign certain aspects of medical training to accommodate students with disabilities without compromising patient safety.

Despite these challenges, the judgment is a crucial step toward building a more inclusive society.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Anmol vs Union of India is a landmark victory for disability rights and medical education reform in India. By prioritizing functional assessments over arbitrary exclusions, the ruling not only upholds the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities but also aligns India’s policies with global best practices.

The judgment sends a strong message that disability is not inability, and that every individual deserves an equal opportunity to pursue their aspirations. Moving forward, it is imperative for educational institutions, policymakers, and the medical fraternity to embrace inclusivity and innovation, ensuring that talent and competence, not physical perfection, define professional success.

.    .    .