Madras High Court Allows PwD Doctor to Participate in NEET PG 2025 Counselling Using 2024 Rank: A Landmark Decision Upholding Disability Rights in Medical Admissions

Spread the Message

Read Time:4 Minute, 10 Second

In a significant ruling on September 8, 2025, the Madras High Court directed authorities to allow a doctor with a 90% physical disability to participate in the National Eligibility-Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET PG) 2025–26 counselling based on his 2024 exam rank. This landmark judgment comes after the candidate was initially denied admission due to a perceived functional unfitness linked to his disability despite qualifying in NEET PG 2024. The court’s decision reaffirms constitutional protections for persons with disabilities, emphasizing the need for reasonable accommodations and accurate disability evaluations in medical education.

Background: The Case of Dr. Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar

Dr. Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar, an MBBS graduate who completed his degree abroad and cleared the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination, suffered an accident in 2021 resulting in an above-elbow amputation—amounting to a severe locomotor disability rated at 90%. Despite securing an All India Rank of 50,084 in the NEET PG 2024 exam and applying for the 5% disability reservation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the medical authorities deemed him functionally unfit for postgraduate courses, barring him from continuing his medical education.

Following his legal petition, the court ordered a reassessment at the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER). The reassessment concluded that while the candidate could not pursue MD Microbiology, he was fit for eight other postgraduate medical courses, including Psychiatry, Radiation Oncology, Preventive and Social Medicine, Hospital and Health Administration, Public Health, Pharmacology, and Biochemistry, where he could be “substantially productive” despite his disability.

Legal and Constitutional Perspective

The Madras High Court bench, led by Justice C. Kumarappan, relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s precedent set in Kabir Paharia vs National Medical Commission, which underscored the constitutional mandate for substantive equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. This mandate requires that persons with disabilities (PwD) be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than exclusion based on inaccurate or prejudicial assumptions about their abilities. The Supreme Court had ruled that if a candidate is denied admission due to incorrect disability assessment, this violates fundamental rights, and the candidate should be granted admission without needing to reappear for exams.

The Madras High Court applied the same principles and asserted that Dr. Maheedhar must be permitted to use his NEET PG 2024 rank to participate in the 2025 counselling for the eight identified courses. This ensures he is not deprived of his right to pursue higher medical education due to flawed disability evaluation.

Implications for Public Health and Medical Education

This ruling is a progressive step in enhancing inclusivity within India’s medical education system. It highlights the importance of accurate, individualized assessments of functional abilities for PwD candidates rather than blanket exclusions. By enabling qualified PwD doctors to continue specialization in courses where they can practice effectively, the decision helps bridge barriers in medical education access and workforce diversity.

For aspiring medical professionals with disabilities, this judgment reassures that constitutional rights and the law protect their academic and career aspirations. It underscores the need for medical institutions and regulatory bodies to adopt inclusive policies that are sensitive to the varied capabilities of PwD candidates.

Experts not involved with the case have noted that such judicial interventions are essential to correct systemic biases and encourage a culture of accommodation and support within the healthcare training infrastructure.

Potential Limitations and Counterarguments

While celebrated, this judgment also draws attention to persistent gaps in disability assessments and accommodation practices in medical admissions in India. Initial flawed evaluations delayed Dr. Maheedhar’s progress by a full academic year. Critics might argue that systemic reforms, including standardized, transparent evaluation criteria and training for assessing authorities, are urgently needed to prevent recurrence.

Moreover, while the court identified eight suitable specialties, the restriction from other specialties raises questions about how disability and productivity are measured. The balance between maintaining academic standards and ensuring non-discriminatory access remains a complex challenge.

Practical Relevance for Readers

For the public and prospective medical students who are PwD, this case highlights the significance of legal rights and the mechanisms available to ensure fair treatment in education. It reminds healthcare institutions and regulators of their legal and ethical duty to provide reasonable accommodations and avoid exclusionary practices.

This ruling may also encourage policymakers to revisit medical admission frameworks, improving inclusivity for PwD candidates, and fostering a more diverse healthcare workforce capable of addressing the population’s needs comprehensively.

Medical Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice. Always consult with qualified healthcare professionals before making any health-related decisions or changes to your treatment plan. The information presented here is based on current research and expert opinions, which may evolve as new evidence emerges.

References