The Supreme Court today allowed a candidate suffering from muscular dystrophy to take part in the ongoing counselling for NEET-UG 2024, stating that the expert report opined that the candidate could pursue the MBBS Course with the help of assistive devices.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a plea by a candidate facing 88% muscular dystrophy and was disqualified from pursuing MBBS on the ground that the NMC Guidelines require bringing down the disability to less than 80% for those with petitioner’s condition to pursue MBBS.
In Muscular Dystrophy, the individual’s body muscles are progressively weakened and face a breakdown, making it difficult to carry out normal physical activities. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had denied to grant any relief, since the petitioner’s disability could not be brought down to less than 80%.
The top court in the previous hearing had requested Dr Satendra Singh to assist the court in examining that notwithstanding the quantified disability, the petitioner can pursue the MBBS degree course.
During the hearing today, the Court perused the report of the expert Dr Satendra Singh, the founder of an organization by the name of Infinite Ability, having doctors who personally face disabilities. According to the report, the petitioner could pursue the course with the help of assistive devices.
However, the counsel for the National Medical Council contended that Dr Singh was an expert in the field of physiology but not the present disease per se. Although, he clarified that he is not against the petitioner’s admission.
Responding, Justice JB Pardiwala said that there are two reports now, the petitioner can be given a chance. The apex court also noted that the petitioner had successfully scored 601/720 marks in the NEET-UG 2024 Exam despite the obstacles of his disability. While allowing the petitioner to appear for the counseling, the Bench clarified that the present order shall not be treated as a precedent for future issues of law that may arise.
The bench added that this order is passed in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner and shall not be construed as a concluding express opinion by this Court on the issues of law that may arise in an appropriate case.
Earlier, the top court also observed that there are no specific guidelines to assess disability with assistive devices as per the GOI gazette (March 24) on assessing specific disabilities.