The National Medical Commission (NMC)’s new interim guidelines on disability admissions have triggered sharp criticism from disability rights advocates, who have accused NMC of perpetuating systemic discrimination and ableism under the guise of reform.
Details of the new guidelines
Released on July 19, 2025, the guidelines ahead of the National Eligibility-cum-Undergraduate Test (NEET) for Undergraduates (UG) counselling (MBBS admissions) for the academic year 2025-26 and in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Om Rathod vs Union of India case (2024), which directed the NMC in October 2024 to revise its policies in line with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
According to the official document, the guidelines have been formulated as a move towards maintaining inclusivity and a shift from rigid-based disability cut-offs to what the NMC calls a “functional competency” model.
As per the model, they have mandated:
- Reasonable accommodations
- Barrier-free infrastructure
- Dedicated disability officers in medical colleges
- A grievance redressal system
Yet, upon further scrutiny, one wonders if these new guidelines are intended to strengthen the rights of the disabled?
EdexLive spoke to Dr Satendra Singh, a senior medical professional and a prominent voice in disability rights advocacy, who was at the centre of the Om Rathod case previously.
What a disability rights activist says...
Dr Singh criticised the NMC for ignoring the core spirit of the Supreme Court's directive. “The court clearly told NMC to base the new guidelines on disability law, technological advancements, and global best practices. These guidelines fail on all counts,” he said.
Dr Singh also took to the social media platform X to express justification for his views.
What is the mandatory self-certified affidavit?
Dr Singh noted that a major point of contention is the introduction of a mandatory self-certified affidavit, which students with disabilities must submit to declare their functional abilities.
He highlighted the underlying sense of discrimination in the process, noting that non-disabled students are not subjected to similar requirements.
“Students without disabilities don’t need to file any affidavit, but students with disabilities must not only submit a notarised declaration but also appear before verification boards.
"This additional burden applies only to NEET candidates who have,” he said, questioning why the same rules do not apply in state-level counselling or other national-level exams like the Institute of National Importance Combined Entrance Test (INICET) for institutions like the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), and so on, highlighting that there must be a semblance of uniformity at the same time.
The affidavit itself has raised eyebrows for its intrusive and exclusionary line of questioning.
"These are just a list of disability-specific tasks which have nothing to do with your competence," said the activist.
He said that candidates are asked if they can climb stairs unaided or stand on their affected limb without support. “I am a professor in a medical college and a person with a disability. By these parameters, I would not qualify for MBBS admission today,” Dr Singh said and added, “These questions are framed to weed out candidates, not to assess their actual competency to practice medicine.”
The committee consisted of just one disabled member...
Singh also questioned the legitimacy of the committee that drafted the guidelines. Despite earlier consultations where names of several senior doctors with disabilities were shared with the NMC, the committee included only one member with a disability, and even that individual had no documented contribution to disability rights scholarship.
“They ignored doctors who have not only lived experience but also academic and professional expertise in disability justice,” Dr Singh said, adding that this was a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s previous instruction to involve professionals with 'lived experience'.
Other points of contention
Singh further alleged that the NMC had ignored other explicit directives from the Supreme Court, including the need to establish 'Enabling Units' in medical colleges, as mandated by UGC regulations.
Instead, the guidelines vaguely referred to “disability cells”, a term Singh said is often misused by hospitals to denote patient care units, rather than educational support structures.
Another critical gap, according to Singh, is the absence of any official documentation or guidance on reasonable accommodations.
“In the UK, the General Medical Council has a guide called 'Welcomed and Valued', detailing how medical institutions can support students with disabilities. The NMC has produced nothing similar,” Singh said, adding that even basic accommodations and additional help, such as sign language interpreters being provided to these doctors, are not mentioned in the guidelines.
Singh also criticised the geographical distribution of the verification centres. There are 16 designated medical boards to assess functional competency, and these are spread across only ten states.
“A student from a remote state with no designated centre will need to travel across the country to prove their eligibility, even after having a valid Unique Disability Identification Card (UDID). This is outright discrimination,” he said.
A hasty decision?
Singh did not shy away from calling out the NMC for what he termed “regulatory opportunism”.
According to the medico, the commission delayed the release of the guidelines until the Supreme Court went into recess, issuing them just a day before counselling began. “This was a calculated move. They missed multiple court deadlines, avoided public consultation, and rushed out an interim document without scope for objections or feedback,” he claimed.
While the NMC claims these guidelines are provisional and subject to future revision, Dr Singh made it clear that the guidelines, in their current form, contradict the essence of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and Supreme Court orders, and could be subject to legal challenge. “What we see is not a move towards inclusion but a continuation of ableist attitudes under a different name,” he said.
These interim guidelines, he stated, are a result of inequities and a product of hasty implementation. "They waited long enough. And just a day before this counselling, they are releasing this report," further adding that the report fuels ableism, and is a far cry from what it is meant to deliver.