Omkar Gond v. Union of India
“Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court ruled that a person with 40% or more disability cannot be automatically disqualified from pursuing MBBS. The Disability Assessment Board must individually assess whether the specific disability will actually prevent the candidate from pursuing the medical course. Blanket exclusion based on disability percentage alone violates Article 14 (Right to Equality).
The Bottom Line
Having 40% or more disability does NOT automatically make you ineligible for medical courses. The authorities must assess whether YOUR specific disability actually prevents you from studying medicine. Blanket bans based on percentage alone are unconstitutional.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
NEET Application
Omkar applied for NEET (UG) 2024 under PwD and OBC categories
NEET Application
Omkar applied for NEET (UG) 2024 under PwD and OBC categories
NEET Examination
Omkar appeared for and qualified NEET (UG) 2024
NEET Examination
Omkar appeared for and qualified NEET (UG) 2024
Disability Assessment
Disability Certification Centre at Sir JJ Hospital declared him ineligible for medical course
Disability Assessment
Disability Certification Centre at Sir JJ Hospital declared him ineligible for medical course
Merit List Published
Omkar's name appeared at rank 42091 in provisional merit list
Merit List Published
Omkar's name appeared at rank 42091 in provisional merit list
High Court Order
Bombay High Court did not grant interim relief, posted matter to September
High Court Order
Bombay High Court did not grant interim relief, posted matter to September
MAMC Assessment
Maulana Azad Medical College gave favorable report that Omkar can pursue MBBS
MAMC Assessment
Maulana Azad Medical College gave favorable report that Omkar can pursue MBBS
Interim Admission
Supreme Court granted interim admission based on MAMC favorable report
Interim Admission
Supreme Court granted interim admission based on MAMC favorable report
Supreme Court Judgment
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, confirmed admission, set guidelines for future cases
Supreme Court Judgment
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, confirmed admission, set guidelines for future cases
The Story
Omkar Ramchandra Gond, a young man from Latur, Maharashtra, dreamed of becoming a doctor. He scored an impressive 97.2% in his 10th standard and cleared NEET (UG) 2024. However, he has speech and language disability (Hypernasality with Misarticulation due to repaired bilateral cleft palate) with 44-45% permanent disability.
When he applied for MBBS admission under the PwD (Persons with Disability) quota, the Disability Certification Centre at Sir JJ Group of Hospitals certified that based on NMC (National Medical Commission) norms, he was "not eligible to pursue medical course" simply because his disability exceeded 40%.
The NMC's Appendix H-1 (dated 13.05.2019) created a blanket rule: persons with 40% or more speech and language disability are not eligible for medical courses. This meant that while persons with less than 40% disability could pursue MBBS (but not get PwD quota), those with 40% or more were completely barred—creating an absurd situation where the very people meant to benefit from PwD reservation were excluded entirely.
Omkar approached the Bombay High Court, which did not grant interim relief. Running against time as admission deadlines approached, he appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Blanket bar is unconstitutional
The NMC/Medical Council of India is not empowered to lay down eligibility criteria that altogether takes away benefits under the RPwD Act. A blanket bar based on percentage alone violates Article 14.
No individual assessment done
The Certification Centre declared him ineligible solely based on disability percentage exceeding 40%, without assessing whether his specific disability actually prevents him from pursuing MBBS.
Absurd outcome
The regulation creates an absurd situation where persons with less than 40% disability can pursue MBBS but cannot get PwD quota, while those with 40%+ (who are meant to benefit from reservation) are completely excluded.
Capable of pursuing the course
There is nothing to show he is not competent to pursue the course. His academic record (97.2% in 10th, cleared NEET) demonstrates his capability.
Respondent
State of Haryana
NMC guidelines are binding
The NMC has prescribed eligibility criteria based on medical expertise. Candidates must meet these criteria for admission.
Disability certificate is conclusive
The Disability Certification Centre has certified that based on NMC norms, the appellant is not eligible for medical course.
Patient safety concerns
Medical profession requires certain physical and communication abilities. Disability thresholds are set to ensure patient safety.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of over-inclusion under Article 14 to strike down the blanket bar. The Court held that among persons with 40%+ disability, there will be individuals like Omkar whose disability does not prevent them from pursuing medical education. Lumping all such persons together and excluding them uniformly is discriminatory. The Court emphasized purposive interpretation of the RPwD Act and Article 41 (Directive Principle on right to education and public assistance in cases of disability).
We are constrained to hold that the Appendix H-1 in the notification of 13.05.2019, issued by the Medical Council of India cannot be interpreted to mean that merely because on the quantification of the disability percentage exceeding the prescribed limits, a person automatically becomes ineligible for the medical course.
Rejects automatic disqualification based on percentage alone.
An over-inclusive classification includes not only those who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose but others who are not so situated as well.
Applies Article 14 doctrine of over-inclusion to disability classification.
Lumping together persons with benchmark disabilities who can pursue the educational course with those with the same disabilities who, in the opinion of the Medical Board, cannot pursue the course would tantamount to over inclusion. This is precisely what Article 14 frowns upon.
Explains why blanket exclusion violates equality.
A blanket non-consideration of women for criteria or command appointments absent an individuated justification was not sustainable in law.
Draws parallel from gender discrimination cases to disability discrimination.
The world would have been so much the poorer if Homer, Milton, Mozart, Beethoven, Byron and many more would not have been allowed to realize their full potential.
Emphasizes the importance of allowing persons with disabilities to achieve their potential.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Omkar Gond's admission to MBBS course was confirmed. The Court directed that his admission be treated as valid in the eyes of law. The judgment also laid down guidelines for future cases affecting all PwD candidates seeking medical education.
Directions Issued
- Quantified disability per se will not disentitle a candidate with benchmark disability from being considered for admission
- Disability Assessment Boards must positively record whether the disability will or will not come in the way of pursuing the course
- Disability Assessment Boards must state reasons if concluding candidate is ineligible
- Pending creation of appellate body, negative decisions are amenable to judicial review
- Courts can refer cases to premier medical institutes for independent opinion
- Omkar's admission to MBBS is confirmed as valid
Key Legal Principles Established
Disability percentage alone cannot automatically disqualify a candidate from educational courses.
Disability Assessment Boards must conduct individualized assessment of whether specific disability prevents pursuing the course.
Blanket exclusion based on disability percentage violates Article 14 (over-inclusion doctrine).
The RPwD Act must be interpreted purposively to achieve its object of inclusion.
Article 41 (Directive Principle) mandates right to education and public assistance for persons with disabilities.
Reasons must be given when declaring a PwD candidate ineligible for a course.
Negative decisions of Disability Assessment Boards are subject to judicial review.
Courts can seek independent medical opinion from premier institutes when reviewing such decisions.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you have 40% or more disability, you are NOT automatically barred from medical courses.
- The authorities must individually assess whether YOUR specific disability prevents you from studying.
- If declared ineligible, ask for written reasons—they cannot just cite percentage.
- You can challenge negative decisions in court and seek independent medical opinion.
- Your academic achievements and capabilities matter—don't give up on your dreams.
- The law (RPwD Act) is meant to INCLUDE you, not exclude you from opportunities.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 14
Constitution of India
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Relevance: Blanket exclusion based on disability percentage violates equality—over-inclusion doctrine.
Article 41
Constitution of India
“The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement...”
Relevance: Directive Principle mandating state action for persons with disabilities.
Statutory Provisions
Section 2(r)
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
“Defines "person with benchmark disability" as a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability.”
Relevance: Defines the category of persons entitled to reservation benefits.
Section 32
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
“All Government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.”
Relevance: Mandates 5% reservation for PwD in higher education.
Notification dated 13.05.2019
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 (Appendix H-1)
“Guidelines regarding admission of students with specified disabilities to MBBS course.”
Relevance: The regulation interpreted by Court to not impose blanket bar.
Related Cases & Precedents
State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills Ltd.
cited(1974) 4 SCC 656
Explained the doctrine of over-inclusive classification under Article 14.
Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya
cited(2020) 7 SCC 469
Held that blanket non-consideration absent individuated justification is not sustainable in law.
Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha v. Union of India
cited(2021) 15 SCC 125
Discussed substantive equality and the need to look beyond facial equality.
Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
citedAIR 1963 SC 591
Even if law appears to treat all alike, if it operates unevenly on similarly situated persons, it offends equality clause.
Vikash Kumar v. UPSC
similar(2021) 5 SCC 370
Landmark case on disability rights and reasonable accommodation in civil services.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.