Anmol vs Union Of India on 21 July, 2026

    0
    9
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Supreme Court – Daily Orders

    Anmol vs Union Of India on 21 July, 2026

         ITEM NO.24                          COURT NO.13                 SECTION IV
    
                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
    
         Miscellaneous Application No.             378/2025 in C.A. No. 14333/2024
    
    
         ANMOL                                                           Petitioner(s)
    
                                                    VERSUS
    
         UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                           Respondent(s)
    
         ([TO BE TAKEN UP AT 2:00 P.M.]
         IA No. 220153/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
         IA No. 220152/2025 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
    
         Date : 21-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
    
         CORAM :
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
    
    
                                       By Courts Motion
    
    
         For Petitioner(s) :
                                       Mr. Atif Inam, AOR
    
         For Respondent(s) :
         No.1-UOI            Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G.
                             Ms. Madhulika Upadhyay, AOR
                             Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv.
                             Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.
                             Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv.
                             Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
                             Ms. Aaditya Shankar Dixit, Adv.
    
         For respondent No.3-NTA
                            Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv.
                            Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.
                            Ms. Neelam Sharma, AOR
                            Mr. Mukul, Adv.
    
         For respondent No.4-NMC
                            Mr. Gaurav Sharrma, Sr. Adv.
    Signature Not Verified
                            Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR
    Digitally signed by
    ANITA MALHOTRA
    Date: 2026.07.22
                            Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv.
    19:41:10 IST
    Reason:
    
    
    
    
                                                     1
    For respondent No.6
                          Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv.
                          Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv.
                          Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv.
                          Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
    
    For Applicant(s)
    in IA 220152/2025     Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan,Sr.Adv.
                          Mr. Punit Agarwwal,Adv.
                          Mr. Rishit V.,Adv.
                          Ms. Niharika Shukla,Adv.
                          Mr. Sajal Jain, AOR
    
    
              UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                 O R D E R
    

    1. Heard Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, learned senior

    counsel appearing for the intervenor (IA No.220152/2025)

    SPONSORED

    and Mr. Gaurav Sharrma, learned senior counsel appearing

    for the respondent-National Medical Commission (NMC).

    2. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-NMC

    submits that the Guidelines on Assessment of Persons with

    Benchmark Disabilities (PvBD) For Admission to MBBS

    Course, 2026 (for short, “the Guidelines”) which had gone

    for vetting, have been duly vetted and now it is in the

    process of being sent to the Director General, Health

    Services (DGHS). Learned senior counsel assures the Court

    that the Guidelines will be included in the prospectus of

    NEET Under Graduate Brochure for 2026-2027 which is

    likely to be issued very shortly. Learned senior counsel

    also submits that the Guidelines for Under Graduate will

    also be uploaded on the website.

    2

    3. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, learned senior counsel

    drawing attention to page 4 paragraph 10 of the

    additional affidavit dated 14th July, 2027 of the

    respondent No.1-Union of India submits that admittedly as

    of now only 33 notified Disability Assessment Boards are

    available. The affidavit states that is is proposed to

    be increased to 43. Learned senior counsel points out

    that as per the judgment of this Court, there should be

    minimum of one Disability Assessment Board in each State

    and each Union Territory. The affidavit of the Union of

    India is not clear on this aspect of the matter.

    4. Let a better affidavit be filed by the respondent

    No.1-UOI setting out the correct position and also

    explaining whether the direction of this Court has been

    complied with.

    5. Learned senior counsel for the intervenor further

    points out that under the directions of this Court each

    Disability Assessment Board must include a doctor or

    health professional with disability. Drawing attention

    to page 5 para 13 of the affidavit of the union of India

    dated 14th July, 2026, learned senior counsel submits that

    all that is set out is that steps are being taken. The

    matter pertains to the rights of individuals under the

    Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and also

    about enforcement of the orders of this Court. By the

    next date of hearing, the Union of India will set out the

    3
    composition of each Disability Assessment Board and

    ensure that there is in each of the Board a doctor or

    health professional with disability.

    6. On the aspect of training and sensitization of

    members of the Disability Assessment Boards, as directed

    by this Court in its judgment in Om Rathore v. Director

    General of Health Services and Others1, the affidavit is

    completely silent. The Union of India by the next date

    of hearing will explain and set out their stand on this

    aspect of the matter.

    7. Learned senior counsel submits that with regard to

    the constitution of Appellate Body, the direction in

    Onkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors.2 is to

    constitute Appellate Body at the level of the Director

    General of Health Services to hear challenges. What is

    suggested is that conclusion of one Disability Assessment

    Board be reviewed laterally by another Disability

    Assessment Board. This is not the purport of the

    judgment. The idea was to provide a higher hierarchy.

    The respondent No.1-Union of India to explain in its

    affidavit as to why no steps have been taken in this

    regard.

    8. Learned senior counsel further points out that the

    judgments of this Court have directed constitution of

    enabling units at Medical Colleges to act as points of

    1. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130

    2. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860

    4
    contact for persons with disabilities seeking clinical

    accommodations and to inform students of the same. The

    affidavit is completely silent on this aspect.

    9. The matter pertains to the Rights of Persons under

    the and it is a very serious matter. The respondent

    No.1-Union of India is directed to bestow its highest

    attention and file a detailed affidavit so that the

    directions of this Court are complied with and are

    operational for the Academic Year 2026-2027 itself.

    10. List the matter on 28th July, 2026 at 2.00 p.m.

    (ANITA MALHOTRA) (MANOJ KUMAR)
    DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER

    5



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here