Disability Guidelines for NEET 2025 Admissions Disappoint, Fall Short of Supreme Court Directives

The recently released disability guidelines by the National Medical Commission (NMC) for MBBS admissions under NEET 2025 have come under strong criticism from disability rights activists and medical professionals. The core concern? These interim guidelines reportedly fall short of the Supreme Court’s directives, especially in ensuring accessible, equitable, and respectful medical education opportunities for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD).

The National Medical Commission had stated that its disability guidelines for the academic year 2025–26 were interim and would be updated in phases. They committed to doing so based on feedback from PwBD students. However, this reassurance hasn’t softened the growing discontent among candidates and advocates, who point out glaring gaps and non-compliance with critical judicial mandates.

Supreme Court Directives Ignored

In a landmark case, Omkar Ramchandra Gond vs Union of India, the Supreme Court issued clear directives to ensure equitable access for PwBD aspirants in medical education. These included:

• At least one medical board in every state and Union Territory to assess candidates with disabilities.
• Creation of enabling units and equal opportunity cells as mandated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
• Maintenance of a national database outlining accessibility features and reasonable accommodations at medical colleges.

Yet, as of now, the NMC has listed only 16 medical boards across 11 states, a clear shortfall from the mandated national coverage. This gap has resulted in logistical and financial burdens for many students. A PwBD candidate from Malda, West Bengal, who scored 338 in NEET 2025 with a rank of 496 under the PwBD category, shared his struggle: “I had to travel all the way to Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, because my state has no screening centre.”

Real-Life Challenges Faced by PwBD Candidates

Several candidates have reported discriminatory or inappropriate experiences during the mandatory medical assessments. Dr Satendra Singh, disability rights activist and faculty at University College of Medical Sciences (UCMS), Delhi, narrated one such case: a wheelchair-using candidate visited a medical board in Tamil Nadu and was shockingly questioned about her ability to save a bleeding patient on the roadside. Her guardians were advised to take her back home for physiotherapy instead.

Such instances underline the insensitivity and lack of proper training among medical board officials, despite the NMC’s claim of conducting awareness sessions to sensitize staff. Dr BN Gangadhar, chairman of the NMC, stated that officials are now required to submit a detailed report specifying a candidate’s disability and the rationale behind any denial of admission.

The Controversial Self-Declaration Form

Another area that has sparked significant debate is Appendix D of the new disability guidelines — the self-declaration form. Candidates with locomotor disabilities are required to declare their ability to perform various daily activities. This includes:

• Bearing weight and standing on both or one leg
• Walking on flat surfaces
• Climbing stairs and going downstairs independently
• Holding and drinking a glass of water

While at first glance this may seem like a functional checklist, critics argue that these criteria are unrelated to the academic and clinical rigors of medical education.

Dr Sharad Philip, clinical assistant professor at AIIMS Guwahati, who has a 70% permanent disability due to retinitis pigmentosa, expressed disappointment. “The problem isn’t with self-declaration per se,” he noted, “but with the nature of what is being asked. None of these abilities are indicative of a student’s capability to succeed in medical school. This format fails to respect the principles of universal design, assistive technology, or reasonable accommodations.”

NMC’s Position: Ongoing Process, Open to Feedback

Responding to the criticism, Dr Gangadhar reiterated that these guidelines are not final. The NMC aims to continue refining the system, informed by direct feedback from students admitted under the PwBD quota. He emphasized that each disability is unique and must be considered with care. He also clarified that assessments would be based on functional ability and guided by the benchmark disability criteria as outlined in the Unique Disability Identification (UDID) card, which remains the primary document for evaluating eligibility under the disability category.

The Way Forward

While the NMC’s intent to gather feedback and improve the system gradually is welcome, stakeholders argue that urgent reforms are needed — not phased corrections, especially when the Supreme Court’s mandates are already in place.

Activists urge that medical colleges must:

• Immediately establish enabling units and equal opportunity cells
• Ensure a minimum of one medical board per state
• Update MBBS admission booklets and college websites to reflect accessibility services
• Create and publish comprehensive databases on college infrastructure, accommodations, and disability support services

Failure to implement these steps continues to keep deserving PwBD students at a disadvantage, defeating the spirit of inclusivity and equality envisioned by both the courts and constitutional rights.

As NEET 2025 counselling progresses, the spotlight remains firmly on the NMC. The coming months will show whether it can course-correct swiftly or remain bogged down by bureaucratic inertia — leaving another generation of aspiring doctors with disabilities underserved.