Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Zill Suresh Jain, a student aged 18 years, suffers from low vision with a 40% visual impairment. She completed her SSC in March 2020 and HSC in March 2022 and aspires to study and practice physiotherapy. She applied for admission to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy course but was denied due to a blanket prohibition in the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 and the Maharashtra Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy Council Regulations, which require 'good eyesight' and disqualify any person with visual impairment. The petitioner challenged this absolute bar as unconstitutional and violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The court analyzed the provisions of the Constitution, the RPwD Act, and the impugned regulations. It held that the blanket ban is arbitrary and disproportionate, and that the state must provide reasonable accommodation. The court read down the regulations to allow persons with visual impairment to pursue physiotherapy subject to an individual assessment by a medical board. The court directed the respondents to constitute a medical board to examine the petitioner and determine if her impairment prevents safe and effective practice. If the board finds her suitable, she shall be admitted to the course. The petition was allowed with these directions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Education - Right to Profession - Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court held that a blanket ban on visually impaired persons from studying or practicing physiotherapy is arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights. The state must provide reasonable accommodation and assess individual capacity rather than impose a complete prohibition. (Paras 1-44) B) Disability Law - Discrimination - Reasonable Accommodation - Sections 2(s), 2(t), 3, 17, 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The court held that the Act mandates non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation in education and employment. The absolute bar in the impugned regulations is inconsistent with the Act and must be read down to allow persons with visual impairment to pursue physiotherapy subject to individual assessment. (Paras 15-30) C) Medical Education - Physiotherapy - Eligibility Criteria - Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 - The court read down the requirement of 'good eyesight' in the regulations to mean that a person with visual impairment may be permitted to study physiotherapy if a medical board certifies that the impairment does not prevent safe and effective practice. The court directed the respondents to constitute a medical board to assess the petitioner's suitability. (Paras 31-44)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a blanket prohibition on persons with visual impairment from studying or practicing physiotherapy is constitutional, and whether the petitioner, who has 40% low vision, can be admitted to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy course.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, holding that the blanket ban is unconstitutional. It read down the impugned regulations to permit persons with visual impairment to pursue physiotherapy subject to individual assessment by a medical board. The court directed the respondents to constitute a medical board to examine the petitioner and, if found suitable, admit her to the course.
Law Points
- Right to education
- Right to profession
- Disability discrimination
- Reasonable accommodation
- Proportionality
- Doctrine of reading down
- Article 14
- Article 19(1)(g)
- Article 21
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
- 2016
- Regulations on Graduate Medical Education
- 1997
- Maharashtra Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy Council Regulations
