Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, three candidates with locomotor disabilities, applied for admission to the Under Graduate Medical Course under the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET UG) 2023 in the Person with Disability (PwD) category. Their disabilities included amputation (54%) and other locomotor disabilities (50% and 40%). The designated Disability Boards, constituted under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, as amended in 2019, assessed them and certified that they were not eligible to pursue medical course, noting that both hands intact with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion are essential. The petitioners challenged the regulations, arguing that they were not in conformity with an expert committee report, were vague, and gave unbridled discretion to the boards. They contended that the regulations overlooked the distinction between dominant and non-dominant upper limbs and that medical education does not necessarily require full use of upper limbs in all branches. They claimed the regulations violated their fundamental right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The respondents, including the Union of India and the National Medical Commission, defended the regulations, asserting the statutory power of the MCI under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the finality of the expert disability board's assessment. The High Court examined the submissions and perused the material. It held that the MCI has exclusive domain to make regulations for medical admissions and that the regulations were within its legislative competence. The court found the restrictions reasonable and in the interest of medical education. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. State of Gujarat and its own earlier judgment in Anita Prakash Shinde v. Union of India, the court ruled that expert disability board decisions are not open to judicial review. The petitions were dismissed, upholding the regulations and the disability boards' findings that the petitioners were not eligible for medical course admission under the PwD category.
Headnote
A) Medical Education - Admission of Persons with Disabilities - Power of Medical Council of India - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 33 - The MCI has exclusive statutory power to frame regulations for assessment and admission of PwD candidates; regulations are within legislative competence - Held that the regulations are valid and not ultra vires (Paras 8, 16).
B) Constitutional Law - Right to Practice Profession - Article 19(1)(g) - Restrictions imposed by MCI regulations are reasonable and in the interest of maintaining standards of medical education - Held that the regulations do not violate fundamental rights (Paras 11, 12).
C) Judicial Review - Scope under Article 226 - Assessment of disability by expert boards - High Court cannot sit in appeal over expert opinion or reassess eligibility; only arbitrary or mala fide decisions can be challenged - Held that the disability board's conclusion that petitioners are not eligible to undertake medical course is not open to judicial review (Paras 13, 15).
D) Precedent - Reliance on Earlier Decisions - Supreme Court in Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. State of Gujarat (2019) 10 SCC 20 and Bombay High Court in Anita Prakash Shinde v. Union of India held that expert disability assessment is final - Petitions dismissed following these precedents (Paras 13, 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 (amended 2019) regarding eligibility of persons with disabilities for medical courses are ultra vires the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; Whether the High Court can review expert disability board assessments
Final Decision
The writ petitions were dismissed. The court held that the MCI regulations are within the statutory powers under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and are not ultra vires. The restrictions are reasonable and do not violate Article 19(1)(g). The expert assessment of the disability boards cannot be judicially reviewed. The court relied on the precedents in Anita Prakash Shinde and Vidhi Himmat Katariya.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- MCI has statutory power under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act
- 1956 to frame regulations for medical admissions
- regulations not ultra vires
- disability board expert assessment not open to judicial review under Article 226
- Article 19(1)(g) reasonable restrictions
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 14
Writ Petition Nos. 9165, 8938, and 9347 of 2023
Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
Citation not available, 2023:BHC-AUG:19805-DB
Santosh S. Dambe, S.J. Salunke, S.M. Sangale, S.S. Kazi h/f M.N. Shaikh, R.R. Bangar, V.S. Kadam h/f S.K. Kadam, S.R. Yadav, P.V. Tapse-Patil
Vaidehi Santosh Borphale, Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Girgune, Momin Ifrah Fatema Mukhtaruddin
Union of India, National Medical Commission, Medical Counselling Committee, State of Maharashtra, Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Designated Disability Board, Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 (as amended in 2019) which govern eligibility of persons with disabilities for admission to medical courses, and the decisions of disability boards declaring petitioners ineligible.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a declaration that the regulations are ultra vires, a direction to re-examine their eligibility, and an order to admit them to the medical course under the PwD category.
Filing Reason
The disability boards certified the petitioners as not eligible to pursue medical course despite their locomotor disabilities, based on regulations that the petitioners claimed were vague and did not follow the expert committee report.
Previous Decisions
The designated disability boards declared the petitioners not eligible; no lower court proceedings. The Bombay High Court in Anita Prakash Shinde v. Union of India had earlier dismissed a similar petition, and the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition against that order.
Issues
Whether the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 (as amended in 2019) regarding eligibility of persons with disabilities for medical courses are ultra vires the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956?
Whether the regulations violate the fundamental right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?
Whether the High Court under Article 226 can review the expert assessment of the disability board regarding a candidate's fitness to pursue medical education?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the regulations were not in conformity with the expert committee report, were vague, and gave unbridled discretion to disability boards. They contended that the regulations did not distinguish between dominant and non-dominant upper limb disability and that medical education does not require full upper limb function in all branches. The regulations were alleged to violate Article 19(1)(g).
Respondents submitted that the MCI has statutory power under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, to frame regulations, which are not ultra vires. The disability boards are expert bodies whose decisions on eligibility are final and not subject to judicial review. The restrictions are reasonable and in the interest of medical standards.
Ratio Decidendi
The Medical Council of India has exclusive domain under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to formulate regulations for eligibility of PwD candidates. Such regulations, if reasonable, are not ultra vires nor violative of fundamental rights. The expert opinion of duly constituted disability boards on a candidate's fitness to pursue medical education is final and not open to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
There cannot be any question about the legislative power and competence of MCI which is a statutory body to have the regulations in place by virtue of Section 33 of the MCI Act.
They being the experts in the field and have found the petitioners not eligible to undertake medical education, this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal, assess the disability and eligibility of the petitioners to undertake medical education.
Procedural History
The petitioners, persons with locomotor disabilities, applied for NEET UG 2023 under the PwD quota. They were examined by designated disability boards, which certified them as not eligible to pursue medical course based on the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 as amended in 2019. Aggrieved, they filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging the regulations and seeking directions for admission. A similar challenge had earlier been dismissed by the same court in Anita Prakash Shinde v. Union of India, and the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition against that order. The present petitions were heard together and dismissed at the admission stage.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Medical Council Act, 1956: Section 33
- Constitution of India: Article 19(1)(g), Article 226
