- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Purswani Ashutosh Petitioner(S) v. Union Of India (S).
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner’s eligibility to pursue an MBBS course was questioned due to alleged visual impairment. A report from the Gujarat Medical & Education Research Society (GMERS), Gandhinagar, certified a 40% low-vision disability, while a later report dated 12 June 2018 from Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, found no visual disability but did not quantify impairment in terms of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2017. Because of these conflicting medical opinions, the court intervened to obtain a conclusive assessment before deciding the petitioner’s entitlement to admission under disability quotas.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the precise extent, if any, of the petitioner’s visual impairment under the statutory benchmark defined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?
- If the petitioner is visually impaired, does the degree of impairment disqualify him from pursuing an MBBS course under extant medical education regulations?
Arguments of the Parties
Medical Council of India (MCI)
- Informed the court that an Expert Committee had concluded that candidates with 40% or more visual disability (Category III or higher) are ineligible for graduate medical education.
- Emphasised that those with less than 40% impairment may study medicine but do not qualify for disability-based reservation.
Union of India
- Through the learned Additional Solicitor General, placed on record a Safdarjung Hospital report indicating “no visual disability,” though the report did not quantify impairment in statutory terms.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted two critical factors: (1) contradictory medical assessments on the petitioner’s vision, and (2) the absence of finalized regulations incorporating the MCI Expert Committee’s recommendations that would categorically bar candidates with ≥40% visual impairment. Recognising that a definitive medical finding is essential before applying any statutory or regulatory bar, the court ordered an independent evaluation by a three-member ophthalmic team from AIIMS (excluding Dr. Radhika Tandon, who had participated in the MCI recommendation).
The expert team is specifically tasked to:
- Determine the exact percentage of the petitioner’s visual disability and whether it reaches the statutory “benchmark disability” threshold.
- State whether, given any such disability, the petitioner is fit to undertake the MBBS course.
This neutral medical evidence will guide the court in reconciling conflicting reports and in applying the Disabilities Act and relevant medical education regulations.
Holding and Implications
Interim Order: The court directed the petitioner to appear before AIIMS on 14 July 2018 for examination and required the expert report by 17 July 2018. The matter is listed for further hearing on 18 July 2018.
Implications: The order postpones any final determination on the petitioner’s admission until a conclusive medical assessment is obtained. It does not establish new legal precedent but underscores the judiciary’s reliance on expert evidence when statutory eligibility hinges on precise medical findings.
1. We have called for the report from the team of experts of Gujarat Medical & Education Research Society (GMERS) Gandhi Nagar, with respect to the visual impairment of the petitioner.
2. It has been opined that there is 40% impairment that has been certified by low vision disability category. On the other hand, another report dated 12.6.2018 of Vardhman Mahavir Medical Colege & Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi has also been placed on record in Court today by Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of India, indicating that there is no disability(visual). However, the report does not deal with the percentage of impairment, if any, in accordance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Medical Regulations on Graduate medical Education (Amendment), 2017.
3. Appendix G as referred in Regulation 4 and 5 where the low vision impairment has been included in the following manner:
B. Visual impairment-
(a) “blindness” means a condition where a person has any of the following conditions, after best correction -
(i) total absence of sight; or
(ii) visual acuity less than 3/60 or less than 10/200(Snellen) in the better eye with best possible correction; or
(iii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of less than 10 degree.
(b) “low-vision” means a condition where a person has any of the following conditions, namely:—
(i) visual acuity not exceeding 6/18 or less than 20/60 upto 3/60 or upto 10/200 (Snellen) in the better eye with best possible corrections; or
(ii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle or less than 40 degree up to 10 degree.
It was submitted on behalf of the Medical Council of India that they have formed an Expert Committee and the Expert Committee has opined that persons with the visual impairment of 40% or more cannot be admitted in the Graduate Medical Course i.e. MBBS. Following is the recommendation of the Committee:
“RECOMMENDATION OF EXPERT OPHTHALMOLOGIST ON VISUAL IMPAIRMENT.
As requested the Comprehensive Recommendation is transposed in compliance with the new nomenclature introduced in Gazette Notification of Rules dated January 5, 2018 pertaining to Person with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Visual Disability.
A person with visual disability of 40% or more (category III or grater) shall not be eligible to pursue Graduate Medical Education.
Persons with visual disability of less than 40%, namely 10% (Category), 20% (Category I) and 30% (category II) are eligible to pursue Graduate Medical Education, but do not qualify for reservation as the extent of visual impairment is less than the benchmark definition of Low Vision.
In the same vein, testing of Colour Vision Deficiency by Ishihara test be compulsorily incorporated in the format of General Physical Examination of the Student, so that all medical students with suspect colour vision should be aware of severity of their deficiency before entering the medical course, and the kind of problems it may pose in the career they have opted.”
4. Aforesaid recommendation has not attained finality and pending before the Central Government for its consideration. Regulations have not been amended so far. The question arises for consideration as to the extent of disability, if any, of petitioner and whether disability is such due to which he cannot pursue the medical course and whether he can take the benefit of Disabilities Act considering the nature of his disabilities.
5. In view of the conflicts in the report, we consider it appropriate to call for expert opinion from a team of experts consisting of 3 senior members of the Ophthalmic Department, AIIMS except Ms. Radhika Tandon, as her opinion is already noted in the recommendation made by the Medical Council of India. Let them give an opinion in this regard with respect to the following aspects:
(i) The extent of the disability, with percentage if any. If yes, whether it is within the benchmark of the disabilities Act.
(ii) Whether the petitioner with the kind of disability, if any he is suffering is fit to undertake the MBBS course.
6. Let a copy of the petition be furnished to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.
7. He has undertaken to furnish the report by 17.7.2018.
8. Let the petitioner appear before AIIMS on 14.7.2018.
9. List the matter on 18.7.2018.
Alert