The Anmol v. Union of India case represents a pivotal moment in Indian disability jurisprudence. The Supreme Court invalidated the "both hands intact" clause, which had been a barrier to medical admissions for candidates with disabilities. This ruling emphasized that assessments should be based on actual functional capabilities rather than rigid physical requirements.
Anmol, a student with locomotor and speech disabilities, faced rejection for MBBS admission under the PwD-OBC category despite achieving a score of 58%. His denial was based on a rule mandating that both hands be functional for eligibility. He challenged this decision, arguing that it was discriminatory and exclusionary.
The Supreme Court found the "both hands intact" clause to lack sound functional reasoning, labeling it as outdated and a form of ableism. The court ruled that this clause was inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
In addressing the issue, the court mandated an independent reassessment by AIIMS, involving disability rights experts. Although the original medical board largely adhered to the old rule, Dr. Satendra Singh’s functional evaluation demonstrated that Anmol could fulfill the requirements with reasonable accommodations.
The court highlighted that the clause did not consider individual abilities and potential when aided by assistive technologies. It treated disability as a deficiency rather than a difference. The judgment underscored that achieving true equality necessitates reasonable accommodation instead of automatic rejection.
The court's decision was rooted in several constitutional rights, including Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and dignity). It also referenced principles from the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by India in 2007.
The court asserted that disability should not be narrowly defined as just a physical condition. It encompasses the impact of social, technological, and institutional barriers. The ruling emphasized that being disabled does not equate to being incompetent.
This landmark ruling encourages a shift from exclusionary practices to inclusive, functional evaluations in admissions. Institutions and regulatory bodies are now urged to accommodate candidates with disabilities, fostering reforms in education and employment criteria.
The court referenced the Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) case, which underscored the state's obligation to provide reasonable accommodations and not penalize individuals due to disability-related barriers.
This ruling propels substantive equality in Indian law, aligning legal frameworks with the lived experiences of individuals with disabilities. It calls for decisive action from legislators and policymakers to expand inclusive educational and professional opportunities.
Q1. What was the main issue in the Anmol case?
Answer: The main issue was Anmol's denial of MBBS admission based on a rule requiring both hands to be functional, which he challenged as discriminatory.
Q2. How did the court view the "both hands intact" rule?
Answer: The court deemed the rule outdated and discriminatory, aligning it with ableism and inconsistent with constitutional equality rights.
Q3. What constitutional rights were referenced in the ruling?
Answer: The ruling referenced Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (right to life and dignity), along with disability rights laws.
Q4. What is the significance of reasonable accommodation in this context?
Answer: Reasonable accommodation is essential for ensuring that individuals with disabilities are not automatically excluded from opportunities based on rigid criteria.
Q5. How does this judgment affect future policies?
Answer: This judgment encourages the adoption of inclusive practices in admissions, promoting equality and accessibility for candidates with disabilities.
Question 1: What was the primary outcome of the Anmol case?
A) Upheld the "both hands intact" rule
B) Struck down the discriminatory admission criteria
C) Limited medical admissions for PwD
D) Increased restrictions on disability rights
Correct Answer: B
Question 2: Which Article of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality?
A) Article 19
B) Article 21
C) Article 14
D) Article 16
Correct Answer: C
Question 3: Who conducted the independent reassessment for Anmol?
A) Original medical board
B) Supreme Court judges
C) AIIMS with disability experts
D) Local health authorities
Correct Answer: C
Question 4: Which previous case was referenced for its emphasis on reasonable accommodation?
A) Anmol v. Union of India
B) Vikash Kumar v. UPSC
C) Kamini Kaushal case
D) None of the above
Correct Answer: B
Kutos : AI Assistant!
