SC: Benchmark disability per se no bar for admissions

Contact Counsellor

CategoryPolity

Last Updated17/10/2024

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that only the existence of the benchmark permanent disability of 40 per cent does not bar a candidate from being considered for admission to an educational institution.

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that candidates with benchmark disabilities of 40% or more cannot be disqualified from admission to educational institutions solely on the basis of their disability. The decision was delivered in the case of a candidate with 45% permanent disability who sought admission to an MBBS course.

The bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K V Viswanathan, emphasized that the mere existence of a quantified disability does not automatically disqualify a candidate. The court ruled that the final decision on eligibility should be made by a Disability Assessment Board, which must assess whether the disability will interfere with the candidate’s ability to pursue the course.

Justice Viswanathan, writing for the bench, stated that the Disability Assessment Boards must clearly document whether a candidate’s disability will hinder their ability to pursue the educational program. In cases where the board determines a candidate is ineligible, it must provide clear reasons for its conclusion.

The court referenced the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, particularly Section 2(y), which defines the principle of reasonable accommodation. This principle calls for appropriate adjustments to ensure that individuals with disabilities can enjoy equal opportunities without undue burden. The court highlighted the need for broad interpretation to include not just assistive devices, but also ensuring full societal participation.

The judgment underscored that the objective of the RPwD Act, along with Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, is to ensure full and effective participation of persons with disabilities. The law mandates institutions to provide equal opportunities, not find reasons to disqualify candidates with disabilities.

The court urged regulatory bodies, the government, and the private sector to adopt an inclusive approach, focusing on how best to accommodate disabled candidates rather than disqualify them. The ruling highlighted the importance of enabling individuals to realize their educational aspirations, irrespective of their disabilities.

The judgment referenced notable examples of individuals who have triumphed over adversity, such as classical dancer Sudha Chandran and mountaineer Arunima Sinha, illustrating that with the right opportunities, people with disabilities can achieve extraordinary success.