0
0
New Delhi, July 25, 2025:
Doctors with disabilities have taken strong exception to the recent disability assessment guidelines for MBBS admissions issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC), claiming that they contravene binding Supreme Court (SC) directives. In a letter to the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), the association “Doctors with Disabilities: Agents of Change” has called for urgent changes, warning that continued non-compliance could lead to contempt proceedings before the Apex Court.
Supreme Court Directions and Alleged Violations
The Supreme Court had earlier directed the NMC to create inclusive policies for people with disabilities (PwBD) in medical education. Key judgments, including Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, mandated:
-
Expanding the number of disability assessment medical boards, with at least one in each State and Union Territory, and additional boards in larger regions.
-
Establishment of an appellate body under the DGHS to hear challenges to medical board decisions.
-
Adequate training for Disability Assessment Board (DAB) members, including input from professionals with disabilities.
-
Publication of training schedules and board composition to ensure transparency.
-
Prominent dissemination of information about reasonable accommodations, enabling units, and Equal Opportunity Cells in admission materials and college websites.
Concerns Raised by the Disability Rights Association
The new NMC Interim Guidelines for MBBS admissions for the 2025–26 academic year, however, require PwBD candidates to:
-
Present a valid UDID card from a designated authority under the Ministry of Social Justice.
-
Submit a self-certified affidavit and undergo verification at one of only 16 designated medical boards.
The association argues that these measures:
-
Force many students to travel across states for assessment, citing logistical and financial hurdles—contrary to the Supreme Court’s requirement for local accessibility.
-
Fail to provide evidence of proper training for DAB members or include doctors with disabilities on the assessment boards.
-
Lack transparency, as board composition has not been disclosed online, and no clear training schedule has been published.
-
Have not constituted the mandatory appellate medical body, denying students a defined process for grievance redressal.
Additionally, doctors noted that requirements to prove functional ability through prescribed checklists risk equating disability with incompetence—an approach criticized for promoting ableism rather than inclusion.
Calls for Urgent Rectification
Doctors with Disabilities: Agents of Change have demanded the following immediate actions from the DGHS and NMC:
-
Expansion of medical assessment boards to cover all States and UTs.
-
Public announcement and independent documentation of training for all board members, with active involvement of professionals with disabilities.
-
Appointment and public listing of doctors with disabilities in all designated boards.
-
Establishment—and prompt notification—of the mandated appellate body.
-
Directions to all medical colleges and NMC to publicly disclose details about accessible infrastructure, enabling units, reasonable accommodations, and their Equal Opportunity Policy.
The association has emphasized that failure to address these gaps constitutes not only a violation of Supreme Court orders but also an infringement on the constitutional rights of persons with disabilities, leaving open the possibility of further legal action.
A Call for Greater Inclusion
Speaking on the need for reform, Dr. Satendra Singh, association head, remarked, “By equating disability with incompetence and turning functional competence into a checklist of physical tasks, the NMC hasn’t just defied the Supreme Court, it has institutionalised discrimination. This isn’t policy; it’s a manifesto for ableism.”
Disclaimer
This article is based on publicly available news reports and statements from disability rights advocacy groups, along with details from recent Supreme Court judgments. It does not constitute legal advice or an official policy statement. For further clarification, readers should consult official notifications from the NMC, DGHS, or the Supreme Court.
