06 May 2025 Legal Updates

'REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION NOT CHARITY BUT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT': SUPREME ALLOWS AIIMS ADMISSION FOR CANDIDATE WITH DISABILITY

(a) Case Title:

• Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission and Others

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• 2nd May, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts

Kabir Paharia, a Scheduled Caste candidate with benchmark disabilities (42% disability with congenital absence of multiple fingers in both hands and left foot), scored 542 marks in NEET-UG 2024. Despite ranking 176th in the SC-PwBD (Persons with Benchmark Disability) category and scoring well above the cut-off marks (143-127), he was denied admission to the MBBS course.

Medical boards at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College-Safdarjung Hospital and AIIMS initially declared him ineligible under National Medical Commission (NMC) norms. Paharia's writ petition and subsequent appeal were dismissed by the Delhi High Court.

Legal Journey

• Paharia approached the Delhi High Court through a writ petition, which was dismissed.
• His Appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench.
• The Supreme Court admitted his Special Leave Petition and ordered a fresh medical assessment.
• A five-member Medical Board at AIIMS conducted a comprehensive assessment, finding that Paharia could perform essential medical procedures despite minor challenges with standard gloves.

Key Legal Issues

1. The application of reasonable accommodation principles for PwBD candidates
2. Whether physical disabilities can be grounds for denying medical education
3. The constitutional validity of exclusionary practices against qualified PwBD candidates

Supreme Court's Findings

• The Court found that the appellant successfully demonstrated essential medical skills including chest compressions, IV cannulation, laryngoscope assembly, intubation, and suturing.
• The only challenge noted was "putting on sterilized standard gloves," which the Court considered a "trivial aberration."
• The Court noted that a candidate with a lower rank (159816) was admitted to AIIMS under the SC-PwBD quota while Paharia (rank 147946) was denied.

Court's Ruling

• The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order of November 12, 2024.
• The Court directed that Paharia be allocated a seat in the MBBS course at AIIMS, New Delhi against the SC-PwBD quota for the 2025-2026 academic session.
• Paharia was exempted from taking NEET-UG 2025.

• The NMC was directed to revise its guidelines within two months in light of previous judgments (Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Sciences and Anmol v. Union of India).

Constitutional Principles

The Court emphasized that:

• Reasonable accommodation for PwBD is a fundamental right, not charity
• The constitutional promise of equality is substantive, not merely formal

DELHI HIGH COURT EXPLAINS CONCEPT OF 'CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA', SAYS IT APPLIES TO WRIT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL

(a) Case Title:

• S C Gupta v. Union of India and Anr

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 5, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Key Facts

The petitioner (S C Gupta) provided intelligence to authorities on January 29, 2001, about evasion of central excise duty. Based on this information, authorities issued a show cause notice demanding Rs. 23.89 crores from the defaulting company. The matter was later settled for Rs. 11.94 crores under the "Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019."

The petitioner claimed he deserved 20% of the recovered amount (Rs. 2.38 crores) as reward under the Guidelines for Grant of Reward to Informers and Government Servants, 2015. Authorities granted him only Rs. 25 lakhs (about 2% of his claimed reward).

The petitioner's previous writ petition and subsequent appeal challenging this decision were dismissed by the Delhi High Court. In this new petition, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 3.3 of the Guidelines.

Key Legal Issue

Whether the principle of Constructive Res Judicata applies to bar the present writ petition, as the petitioner could have challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 3.3 in his earlier litigation but failed to do so.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

1.  The Court extensively discussed the principle of Constructive Res Judicata, which prevents parties from raising issues in subsequent proceedings that could have been raised in earlier litigation.

2. Constructive Res Judicata - any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.

3. The Court affirmed that although Section 141 of CPC (as amended in 1976) excludes Article 226 proceedings from its purview, the principles of Constructive Res Judicata still apply to writ proceedings based on:

• Public policy considerations
• Prevention of multiplicity of litigation
• Need for finality in legal proceedings

4. The Court held that since the petitioner could have challenged Clause 3.3 of the Guidelines in his earlier writ petition but didn't do so, the current petition is barred by the principle of Constructive Res Judicata.

Judgment

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.