A moving time in the judicial system, especially at the Supreme Court, where a kind and hopeful comment was issued. The quote, “Who knows, someday she may become an excellent doctor,” has deep meaning since it gives a girl whose dreams of becoming a doctor were all but destroyed hope and inspiration. The girl faced hardship when her 55% language and speech impairment prevented her from being accepted into the MBBS program. Her schooling and aspirations were hindered by this refusal, which was ascribed to the contentious policies of the National Medical Commission (NMC). She also lost a year as a result.
the differing viewpoints inside the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER) medical board and the Supreme Court’s subsequent intervention. The medical board at PGIMER acknowledged that, notwithstanding the challenges posed by her impairment, there was no good reason to keep her from earning a medical degree. In 2022, the Supreme Court granted admission to Vibhushita Sharma for the next academic year by intervening in the case Vibhushita Sharma v Union of India, under Article 142 of the Constitution.
However, the paragraph implies that the girl did not realize her struggles were far from done when she set out on her trek in August of the previous year. This suggests that even with the court ruling and acceptance into the educational program, there were likely additional hurdles or ongoing difficulties she had yet to encounter in her pursuit of a medical education.
The Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations’ Gazette announcement, which is expected to arrive on January 1st, 2023. Although there has been a global movement in favor of equal opportunities for people with impairments, the paragraph laments the troubling pattern noted in the most recent National Medical Commission (NMC) Gazette. Particularly concerning are the requirements for disabled applicants to postgraduate medical schools, which appear to deviate from the inclusive ideals promoted by the global disability rights movement.
Since NMC laws now prohibit people with a speech impediment equal to or greater than forty percent from pursuing postgraduate studies, these new restrictions cast a shadow over the dreams of many deserving students with disabilities, including Sharma. Courts frequently decline to become involved in recommendations made by medical professionals. But as we’ve seen above, opinions among doctors might differ. Despite the recommendations of a pan-Indian association called Doctors with Disabilities: Agents of Change, which referenced international best practices, none of them were implemented.
This text raises questions about the National Medical Commission (NMC) by highlighting the fact that, in addition to disregarding the insightful perspectives of experts who are physicians with disabilities, it also, and perhaps more concerningly, deviates from the advice of its own panel of experts. The specific concern brought up is that those with mental illnesses and autism are not included in the list of suggested candidates. The NMC rules raise concerns about the fairness and inclusivity of the evaluation criteria by justifying this exclusion by stating the lack of an objective technique to establish the presence and extent of mental illness.
The text highlights the NMC’s steadfast position, pointing out its resemblance to the MBBS rules that were previously scrutinized in the Tathagata Ghosh v. Union of India case (2018) that was heard before the West Bengal High Court. In this instance, a candidate with a mental disorder was admitted. In a similar vein, the Delhi High Court ordered the NMC to investigate the prospect of individuals with impairments continuing medical education, taking into consideration scientific and technological breakthroughs, in the Neha Pudil v. UOI (2022) case. Due to this legal mandate, the NMC was forced to revise the guidelines for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) on December 19, 2022, with the assistance of specialists from the 16 NMC disability certification facilities.
A substantial change in the way the recommendations are formulated. The revision of the guidelines involved the expertise of two professionals from prestigious institutions, namely Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (RML) and the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), in contrast to the original guidelines that were developed in conjunction with a single psychiatrist. The updated recommendations were questioned by these specialists, who called them “untenable.” Their objection stems from the fact that the government used official gazette notifications to release these guidelines for the assessment of mental illness, suggesting that the new recommendations may not be as viable or sustainable as they should be.
This text emphasizes the general agreement among specialists that people with disabilities who finish the MBBS program successfully show competency in patient safety that is on par with that of their peers without disabilities. Notably, this agreement was formalized in a matter of minutes and signed by a psychiatrist, a former director of NIMHANS, and the president of the Ethics & Medical Registration Board. Through an RTI response, it is shown that these progressive guidelines were never made public. The NMC’s decision to stick with the outdated, biased style instead raised questions about openness and the adherence to inclusive practices in medical education laws.
According to this reasoning, the predetermined classifications that use fixed disability cut-offs of 40 percent or 80 percent for particular disabilities are incompatible with the goals set forth in the Disability Act. Consequently, it is claimed that this classification violates fundamental constitutional values, including Articles 14, 15, and 16. The notion that ignoring talent at the postgraduate level directly violates the fundamental values of promoting a truly egalitarian society is emphasized by using the Preamble to the Constitution, which guarantees equal opportunity to all individual.
As acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021), the Gazette explicitly rejects affirmative action and the right to inclusive, non-discriminatory access to education and adequate accommodations. Furthermore, confusing new terminology that do not comply with the Act’s requirements have been added, such as “moderate” dyslexia.
This statement challenges the way that disability policies are decided upon, drawing attention to a persistent pattern in which people without disabilities create these policies while marginalizing the views of those who would be directly affected. Discriminatory practices persist in spite of a decision from the Chief Commissioner for Persons with impairments in the Satendra Singh v. DGHS (2023) case, which directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to include physicians with impairments in developing new standards. People with disabilities are frequently expected to show their ability and fight for their rights in court, which exposes structural ableism in the NMC and keeps the system in place where ongoing advocacy and legal intervention are necessary.
In making this declaration, the authors sincerely hope that the courts will be a key player in promoting disability justice and defending the equality and nondiscrimination clauses of the constitution. It highlights how crucial it is for the judiciary to understand the significant influence its rulings can have on creating a society that is more equal and inclusive. This appeal emphasizes how important it is for the legal system to support constructive social change and make sure that people with disabilities receive the fair treatment and dignity they are due.
