When will disabled NEET aspirants get their SC-sanctioned rights?
Written by Satendra Singh
A NEET aspirant with a disability has been messaging me continually since March. Her only question: 'When will the National Medical Commission (NMC) issue revised disability guidelines for MBBS and MD/MS, as per the Supreme Court's directions?'
On 14 June 2025, the NEET-UG results were declared. Over 750 students with disabilities from diverse communities — General, OBC, SC, ST, and EWS — have qualified. However, their joy is short-lived. The silence of the NMC and the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) has left them paralysed by uncertainty. Which guidelines will apply? Have more disability assessment centres been designated? Which colleges can they safely choose? The promised web portal listing accessibility-compliant colleges — as ordered by the apex court — is still absent. This is not merely a bureaucratic delay. It seems to be a defiance of the Supreme Court's orders, a betrayal of India's constitutional promise of equality, and perhaps even contempt of court.
In April 2022, the Delhi High Court in Neha Pudil vs NMC directed that the discriminatory disability guidelines be revised within six months. Two years later, that direction remains unimplemented. Then in October 2024, the Supreme Court in Omkar Ramchandra Gond vs UOI mandated the NMC to revise its guidelines before the NEET 2025 brochure was published and to establish an Appellate Medical Body. The brochure was released, but the guidelines and the body were not.
In the same month, in another landmark judgment — Om Rathod vs DGHS — the apex court went further, ordering the establishment of enabling units for reasonable accommodations, accessibility compliance details on the NEET portal, functional support, including assistive technology, modified pedagogy, and trained staff. None of these directives has been followed.
By November 2024, the situation was so dire that the Supreme Court had to summon the DGHS in Anmol vs UOI. Only after the embarrassment of public scrutiny did Anmol receive his rightful MBBS seat. Still, the DGHS has ignored directions to establish Disability Assessment Boards (DABs) in every state and to include doctors with disabilities in these boards, as well as provide them with training on disability justice and ableism. Following the SC's lead, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in January also ordered the formation of an Appellate Board. The NMC ignored that, too.
In February 2025, the apex court finally struck down the infamous 'both hands intact' clause as ableist and left scope for further compliance review. But in March, the Suyash Patil case exposed the NMC's indifference again: the student lost an entire academic year due to a clerical lapse in DAB records. The NMC's solution? Accommodate next year.
Even when the NMC did form a committee, it stuffed it with the same architects of the old discriminatory policy. Tokenism ruled: just one doctor with a disability, from an institution outside the NMC's purview, with no undergraduate programme. Expectedly, this committee missed its 15 April deadline to publish the revised guidelines.
Then came May, and the Kabir Paharia case. The Supreme Court gave relief only one day before NEET 2025. Another student was rescued. Another year lost. Another trauma inflicted.
As of today, both the NMC and DGHS have violated their affidavit in the Anmol matter, which had promised to release guidelines by 15 April 2025. NEET 2025 results are out. But disabled aspirants are frozen in limbo, deprived of the ability to plan or hope.
Worse, the very committee revising the guidelines includes no medical student with a disability. This is a violation not just of principles of participatory justice, but also of international norms. The World Federation for Medical Education — to which NMC is affiliated — mandates in its Basic Medical Standards (2020) under Clauses 4 and 8 that students must be involved in governance.
What we are witnessing is institutionalised impunity. The NMC and DGHS have now routinely defied not just one, but multiple High Court and Supreme Court directives. Why then has no contempt proceeding been initiated? Justice delayed is not only justice denied — it becomes injustice institutionalised. Every day of inaction from the NMC and DGHS is a day of stolen dreams, heightened anxiety, and unconstitutional discrimination against India's most marginalised NEET qualifiers.
It is now imperative that the Supreme Court's vacation bench takes suo motu cognisance of this deliberate, systemic, and continuing contempt — and that real accountability, not symbolic compliance, is finally enforced.
The writer teaches at the University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi, and is a disability rights activist. Views are personal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
36 minutes ago
- Hans India
Bench's pledge may restore trust after Bar's cry for respect
On a stifling June morning in Hyderabad, the Telangana High Court's lively corridors hummed with tension. As a journalist-turned-advocate, my gown rests heavily on my shoulders, seasoned by decades of courtroom tales — triumphs, struggles, and now, a rising unease. On June 26, the Telangana High Court Advocates' Association (THCAA) held an extraordinary meeting, driven by grievances over a judge's alleged discourteous conduct: sharp and dismissive remarks and punitive costs, like a Rs three lakh fine on a senior counsel for withdrawing an appeal. The Bar resolved to boycott the judge's court from June 30, appeal to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for the judge's transfer, and urge the acting Chief Justice not to allocate judicial duties to the judge. Soon, the High Court collegium, led by the acting Chief Justice, engaged with THCAA representatives, advising restraint and pledging to counsel the judge to foster respect for advocates. As an advocate, I see this as a chance to turn tension into trust. Here, I explore the Bar's stand, the collegium's response, and the path to a harmonious courtroom, guided by the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002), which emphasise courteous treatment of advocates. A sting in the courtroom: The courtroom is a crucible where advocates balance client hopes and ethical duties under intense pressure. Last month, I watched Priya (name changed), a young advocate, fumble through files to answer the judge's query about page numbers. The judge cut her off sharply: 'Have you not come prepared, Counsel? Post the matter for tomorrow.' Priya's face flushed, the room fell silent. Over chai at the court canteen, she confided, 'I was prepared, but that tone crushed me.' Her story echoes across the Bar. Veteran advocate Rao spoke at the general body meeting of facing faced a similar blow: a Rs three lakh fine for withdrawing an appeal forced his client to abandon a case. Another female veteran advocate, voice heavy, noted that the judge's frequent adjournments, citing unpreparedness, led clients to question her competence levels. The Bangalore Principles mandate judges to treat advocates respectfully to uphold public trust. When dismissive remarks or excessive costs undermine this, as alleged by the THCAA, they hinder representation and access to justice under Article 39A. The Association's meeting was a collective cry to restore dignity, amplified by claims that prior efforts to raise concerns went unheard. Having seen discourtesy chill advocacy, I share their frustration. Resolutions with heart, risks in tow: The THCAA's meeting reflects the Supreme Court-recognised mandate to protect advocates. Their resolutions — boycotting the court, appealing for the judge's transfer, and requesting against assigning duties to the judge — carry their anguish. At the meeting, a veteran human rights activist-turned-advocate said, 'We fight for every silenced advocate, every trusting litigant.' His words rallied the room, underscoring a commitment to dignity. Yet, these steps are delicate. In the C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995), the Supreme Court cautioned that boycotting courts or public demands risks disrupting justice and inviting contempt scrutiny, straining judicial harmony under Articles 214–231. The Bar's plan to boycott the judge's court from June 30 risks delaying cases, leaving litigants in limbo. Appeals for transfer of the judge may seem like pressure on the judiciary, as noted by Iyer. My journalism days taught me the power of bold moves, but confidential representations with evidence like court transcripts often resolve tensions without public strife. The collegium's engagement with the Bar, advising restraint and pledging to counsel the judge, offers hope. This aligns with the Bangalore Principles' call for mutual respect. The THCAA can channel their passion into constructive dialogue. Hurdles for ambitious demands: The THCAA's resolutions face several challenges: Judicial transfer:Under Article 222, the CJI and Supreme Court Collegium can transfer judges, but only after a 1999 in-house inquiry, publicised in 2014. Without prior steps, the appeal lacks immediate traction. Court participation:Boycotting the court risks delaying cases in already backlog-heavy courts. Judicial assignments:A High Court Chief Justice may adjust portfolios, but withholding duties without inquiry raises fairness concerns. The High Court collegium's guidance to the Bar underscores these limits, favouring institutional remedies. Voices of the Bench-CJI's perspective: Guided by the Bangalore Principles and Iyer, the CJI likely empathises but sees public demands as disruptive, risking contempt. Evidence-based complaints through a proper channel could trigger a 1999 procedure review. Acting Chief Justice's view:While recognising advocates' distress, the acting Chief Justice may view public actions of the Bar as disruptive. The collegium's engagement with the Bar, advising restraint and pledging to counsel the judge, reflect mediation efforts to restore calm. Both prioritize dialogue, balancing dignity with judicial processes. Ethics and justice at stake-Professional ethics:The Bar Council of India Rules bind advocates to decorum, and limiting participation risks disruption. Yet, the THCAA's actions, sparked by Priya's humiliation and Rao's frustration, reflect genuine concerns over discourtesy. The Bangalore Principles demand mutual respect from both sides. Justice administration:Delaying cases worsens pendency, impacting litigants. I recall Gopal Rao, a litigant in his early fifties, waiting years for his divorce case, highlighting the human cost. The THCAA's stand underscores the need for reforms like transparent cost guidelines, as in Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust (2012). A path forward: Bridging the divide-Dialogue:The THCAA should submit evidence — transcripts, cost orders — to the acting Chief Justice for an in-house review, embracing the collegium's guidance to avoid escalation. Judicial review:The collegium should assess the judge's alleged discourteous conduct of sharp and dismissive remarks and punitive costs, ensuring accountability and respect as per the Bangalore Principles. Sensitisation:The National Judicial Academy and Bar Council workshops can reinforce etiquette. Cost guidelines:The High Court should enforce clear cost rules for fairness. Bar-Bench forums:Regular forums, effective elsewhere, can build trust. A shared sanctuary:The THCAA's stand, born from Priya's faltering moment and Rao's defeated client, is a fight for dignity. While public actions risk disruption, the collegium's engagement offers a constructive path, helping to knit the legal community together. By embracing dialogue and institutional remedies, the THCAA can uphold advocates' dignity, fostering a courtroom where fairness and respect prevail, aligned with the Bangalore Principles. As I walk these halls, I hold hope that tension will transform into trust, preserving the courtroom as a sanctuary of justice. (The author is former Senior Editor, The Economic Times, and currently practising as an Advocate at the Telangana High Court)
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Brazil's ex-leader Jair Bolsonaro rallies supporters in Sao Paulo to protest his Supreme Court trial
Former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro on Sunday (June 30, 2025) attended a public demonstration in Sao Paulo to protest against his ongoing Supreme Court trial in the South American country. A couple of thousand people gathered on Paulista Avenue, one of the city's main locations, in a demonstration that Mr. Bolsonaro, before the event, called 'an act for freedom, for justice". Mr. Bolsonaro and 33 allies are facing trial over an alleged plot to overturn the 2022 Presidential election results and remain in power. They were charged with five counts related to the plan. The former President has denied the allegations and claims that he's the target of political persecution. He could face up to 12 years in prison if convicted. 'Bolsonaro, come back!' protesters chanted, but the former president is barred from running for office until 2030. Brazil's Superior Electoral Court ruled last year that he abused his political power and made baseless claims about the country's electronic voting system.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
With National agencies overburdened, Supreme Court opts for 'special' SITs
The Supreme Court established two special investigation teams (SITs) in May to probe FIRs against Madhya Pradesh minister Kunwar Vijay Shah and Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad. These SITs, composed of IPS officers from outside the respective states, were formed due to concerns about overburdened national agencies and the need for effective investigations. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court constituted two special investigation teams (SITs) in two separate cases in May to investigate FIRs registered against Madhya Pradesh minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his comments against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad for his Facebook post on Operation constituting these SITs, SC passed distinct directions. First, it ordered that SIT members will be IPS officers . Second, all the three investigating officers should be from outside the state where the alleged offences were May 19, a bench headed by justice Surya Kant elaborated on the reason for constituting these unique SITs."National investigating agencies are overburdened. Sometimes the delay in investigation frustrates the outcome," justice Kant had remarked, adding that such SITs have delivered "effective" outcomes in the recent observed that in a few cases it might even monitor the investigations so that a case can be taken to its logical conclusion. In both cases, while constituting SITs, the bench made it clear that one of the three members of the SIT must be a woman IPS the case of Shah, SC on May 19 constituted a three-member SIT to investigate the FIR filed by MP Police on the directions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had taken suo motu cognisance of Shah's remarks against Colonel Qureshi, calling her a "sister of terrorists".A bench of justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh had directed Madhya Pradesh DGP to constitute an SIT of three IPS officers of Madhya Pradesh cadre, clarifying that they should be from outside MP. SIT will be headed by an officer not below the rank of inspector general. The other two would be of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above, SC had ordered. It had added that although it would refrain from monitoring a probe, but given the "peculiar facts and circumstances of the case", the SIT was directed to submit the outcome to the case of Mahmudabad, SC on May 21 directed Haryana DGP to constitute an SIT of three IPS officers not belonging to Haryana or Delhi to investigate the allegations. One of the members of SIT, SC ordered, shall be a woman officer.
