Introduction:
The Orissa High Court has granted relief to a NEET-UG 2026 candidate diagnosed with β Thalassemia Trait after a Medical Assessment Board rejected her claim for disability reservation on the ground that her condition did not result in functional or locomotor disability. The Court held that when a particular medical condition is recognised as a specified disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the authorities cannot assess the candidate’s eligibility by applying the criteria applicable to an entirely different category of disability.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash set aside the medical assessment report and directed the competent authority to constitute a fresh Medical Assessment Board. The new Board was directed to examine the petitioner and assess the percentage of her disability to determine whether she satisfied the eligibility requirements under the 2016 Act.
The judgment was delivered in Harapriya Das v. State of Odisha & Others, W.P.(C) No. 28286 of 2026, and is reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 110.
The dispute arose during the admission process for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG), 2026. The petitioner had appeared for the examination while claiming eligibility under the disability reservation category. Her claim was supported by a disability certificate issued by a competent authority, which certified that she suffered from β Thalassemia Trait with a disability percentage exceeding 40%.
However, the petitioner was subsequently referred to a Medical Assessment Board for evaluation. The Board rejected her claim, reasoning that her condition did not result in functional or locomotor disability and that she did not satisfy the requirements for a disability certificate entitling her to reservation benefits.
The rejection effectively prevented the petitioner from availing herself of the disability reservation framework under the 2016 Act, notwithstanding the certificate she had obtained from the competent authority.
The petitioner initially approached the High Court by filing a writ petition challenging the medical assessment. During those proceedings, the Court permitted her to submit a representation to the Chairman of the Odisha Joint Entrance Examination, 2026, raising her grievance by 11 AM on August 21, 2026.
Despite this opportunity, the appellate authority subsequently issued a notice declaring her ineligible for reservation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner approached the High Court again, challenging the rejection of her disability claim.
The matter required the Court to examine the statutory meaning of a person with benchmark disability and the relationship between that definition and the categories of specified disabilities recognised under the Act.
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, was enacted to strengthen the legal framework for protecting the rights of persons with disabilities and to promote their participation in education, employment and public life. It recognises several categories of disabilities and provides a framework for identifying persons who qualify for statutory benefits.
Section 2(r) defines a “person with benchmark disability”. In general terms, it refers to a person with not less than 40% of a specified disability, where the disability has not been defined in measurable terms, and includes a person with a disability where the specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority.
Section 2(zc), meanwhile, defines “specified disability” by reference to the disabilities recognised under the Schedule to the Act.
The Schedule includes several distinct categories, including physical disability, intellectual disability, mental behaviour, neurological disability and blood disorders. Thalassemia is recognised within the category of blood disorders.
The statutory scheme therefore distinguishes between the recognition of a particular disability and the assessment of the percentage of disability suffered by an individual.
The central question before the High Court was whether a Medical Assessment Board could reject a claim based on a recognised blood disorder merely because the condition did not produce functional or locomotor limitations.
The Court’s decision is significant because it clarifies that disability assessment must remain connected to the specific category recognised by the statute. An assessment cannot disregard a recognised disability simply because the individual does not also satisfy the characteristics associated with another category.
At the same time, the Court did not automatically declare the petitioner eligible for disability reservation. It directed a fresh assessment of the percentage of her disability so that the competent authority could determine whether she fulfilled the statutory eligibility criteria.
The judgment thus addressed both the legal limits of medical assessment and the distinction between recognition of a disability and entitlement to a particular statutory benefit.
Arguments of the Parties:
The dispute before the Orissa High Court centred on the legality of the Medical Assessment Board’s decision and the interpretation of the disability reservation framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The petitioner’s challenge was directed against the rejection of her disability claim despite the existence of a certificate issued by a competent authority. The respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the medical assessment that found no functional or locomotor disability resulting from her condition.
Petitioner’s Submissions:
Harapriya Das approached the High Court challenging the decision that had rendered her ineligible for disability reservation in the NEET-UG 2026 admission process.
The petitioner had declared herself to be a person with disability while appearing for the examination. Her claim was supported by a disability certificate issued by the competent authority, which recorded that she suffered from β Thalassemia Trait with a disability percentage exceeding 40%.
The medical assessment subsequently conducted by the Board became the principal obstacle to her claim. The Board concluded that the petitioner did not suffer from functional or locomotor disability as a consequence of Thalassemia and therefore did not qualify for the benefit claimed under the 2016 Act.
The petitioner challenged this assessment through writ proceedings. During the earlier proceedings, the High Court permitted her to submit a representation to the Chairman of the Odisha Joint Entrance Examination, 2026, so that her grievance could be considered by the appropriate authority.
However, the appellate authority subsequently issued a notice declaring her ineligible for reservation under the Act. This prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court again.
The substance of her grievance was that the medical assessment had failed to properly consider the disability recognised in her certificate. The question was not simply whether she experienced difficulty in performing particular physical activities, but whether her condition fell within a category of disability recognised by the governing legislation and whether she satisfied the applicable percentage requirement.
The statutory framework was therefore central to her challenge. The petitioner sought relief against a decision that treated the absence of functional or locomotor limitations as sufficient to reject her disability claim.
The Court was required to consider whether such an approach was legally sustainable when the disability relied upon by the petitioner was a blood disorder recognised under the Schedule to the Act.
The petitioner’s case consequently raised an important distinction between the medical identification of a specified disability and the assessment of the percentage of disability for determining eligibility for statutory benefits.
Submissions of the Respondents:
The respondents included the State of Odisha, the Directorate of Medical Education and Training (DMET), and the authorities involved in the disability assessment and admission process.
The Medical Assessment Board had rejected the petitioner’s claim on the ground that her β Thalassemia Trait did not result in functional or locomotor disability.
The medical opinion proceeded on the basis that the petitioner did not suffer from the kind of functional limitation that would justify the issuance of a disability certificate for the purpose of the benefits claimed.
The Board therefore concluded that the petitioner’s condition did not entitle her to reservation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The appellate authority subsequently issued the impugned notice declaring her ineligible for reservation.
During the proceedings, the counsel appearing for the Director of DMET was directed by the High Court to produce the relevant documents that had formed the basis of the appellate authority’s final opinion.
Those documents were placed before the Court on September 8, 2026. Upon examining them, the Bench found that the medical opinion had relied upon the absence of functional or locomotor disability resulting from Thalassemia.
The respondents’ position, as reflected in the assessment, was therefore that the petitioner did not satisfy the medical requirements for disability benefits because her condition did not produce the functional consequences considered relevant by the Board.
The reported case summary does not record any separate detailed constitutional or statutory submission by the respondents beyond the medical assessment and the resulting decision. The central issue was consequently examined by the High Court primarily through the statutory definitions and the reasoning adopted by the Medical Assessment Board.
The Court had to determine whether the Board was entitled to apply functional or locomotor disability as a benchmark when assessing a condition that the legislation separately recognised as a blood disorder.
The respondents’ medical assessment and the petitioner’s statutory claim thus presented the Bench with a question concerning the proper scope of medical evaluation under the 2016 Act.
Court’s Judgment:
The Orissa High Court allowed the petitioner’s challenge to the medical assessment and held that the Board had adopted an incorrect approach by focusing on functional and locomotor disability while assessing a condition recognised under the separate category of blood disorders.
The Division Bench examined the relevant provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and concluded that the statutory definitions did not permit the authorities to disregard one specified disability merely because it did not produce the characteristics associated with another category.
The Court accordingly set aside the medical assessment report and directed the competent authority to constitute a fresh Medical Assessment Board to determine the percentage of the petitioner’s disability.
Examination of the statutory definitions
The Court began its analysis by referring to Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which defines a person with benchmark disability.
The provision recognises a person as having a benchmark disability where the person has not less than 40% of a specified disability, subject to the statutory distinction between disabilities defined in measurable terms and those that are not.
The Bench considered this definition alongside Section 2(zc), which defines a specified disability by reference to the categories recognised under the Schedule to the Act.
The Court found that the two provisions had to be read together. The definition of benchmark disability could not be interpreted independently of the statutory meaning of specified disability.
In the Court’s view, the expression “specified disability” appearing in Section 2(r) had to carry the same meaning as assigned to it under Section 2(zc).
This interpretation was important because the legislation itself identifies the disabilities that fall within its scope. Once a condition is recognised as a specified disability, the authorities must assess the claim within the framework applicable to that disability.
The Court observed that the combined reading of the two definitions left no ambiguity that a person suffering from a specified disability of not less than 40% could fall within the category of a person with benchmark disability, subject to the applicable certification requirements.
The Bench therefore rejected an approach that would treat the definition of benchmark disability as requiring a person to demonstrate an additional form of disability that the statute did not prescribe.
The statutory question was whether the petitioner suffered from a recognised disability and satisfied the relevant percentage requirement, not whether she also experienced limitations associated with a different disability category.
Recognition of Thalassemia as a specified disability
A central feature of the judgment was the Court’s examination of the Schedule to the 2016 Act.
The Schedule recognises several categories of disability, including physical disability, intellectual disability, mental behaviour, neurological disability and blood disorders.
The Court emphasised that these categories are separately recognised by the legislation. Each category has its own statutory significance and cannot be treated as merely a variation of another category.
Thalassemia falls within the category of blood disorders. The petitioner’s claim was therefore required to be examined in the context of that recognised category.
The Medical Assessment Board, however, had concentrated on whether the petitioner’s condition resulted in functional or locomotor disability.
The Court found fault with this reasoning because the absence of locomotor limitations did not, by itself, answer the question of whether the petitioner suffered from a specified disability under the Act.
A person may suffer from a recognised blood disorder without necessarily experiencing the kind of physical limitation associated with locomotor disability. The statutory recognition of blood disorders would lose its independent significance if eligibility were made dependent upon the existence of such additional limitations.
The Bench accordingly held that the medical assessment could not use locomotor disability as a benchmark for determining whether the petitioner’s Thalassemia fell within the category of specified disability.
The Court observed that the medical opinion had focused on locomotor disability even though Thalassemia did not necessarily affect a person’s functional ability.
In its view, this could not be a valid ground for rejecting the petitioner’s claim that she belonged to the category of persons with specified disabilities.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the legislature had deliberately included distinct categories of disability within the Act. The authorities were required to respect those distinctions while carrying out medical assessments.
Medical assessment cannot extend beyond the relevant statutory category
The Court’s most important observation concerned the limits of the Medical Assessment Board’s authority.
The Bench held that once the statute includes a particular disease within the category of specified disability, the assessment must be directed towards that disability.
The Board cannot expand the scope of its assessment by introducing another category of disability as a necessary benchmark.
The Court explained that the medical opinion could not be accepted merely because the petitioner’s Thalassemia did not affect her functional or locomotor abilities.
The relevant question was whether the petitioner suffered from the specified disability recognised by the Act and, if so, the percentage of that disability.
The Court observed that the Board’s assessment had effectively treated locomotor disability as a condition that the petitioner had to satisfy, even though the claim was based on a blood disorder.
This approach, according to the Bench, was inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
The Court made it clear that the different categories of disability recognised under the Schedule must be treated independently. One category cannot be used to subsume or exclude another.
The Bench observed that the categories of physical disability, intellectual disability, mental behaviour, neurological disability and blood disorders were separately recognised under the legislation.
Each category therefore stood on its own independent footing.
The Court’s reasoning was particularly significant because it prevented medical authorities from introducing additional requirements that could undermine the statutory recognition of a particular disability.
If a person claims eligibility on the basis of a recognised blood disorder, the assessment must focus on that disorder and the applicable statutory criteria. The absence of locomotor disability cannot automatically defeat the claim.
At the same time, the Court did not hold that every person diagnosed with Thalassemia would automatically qualify for disability reservation. The statutory requirement concerning the percentage of disability and certification by the competent authority remained relevant.
The judgment was concerned with the legal method of assessment, rather than granting an unconditional entitlement to reservation.
Distinction between specified disability and benchmark disability
The Court’s interpretation also clarified the difference between having a specified disability and qualifying as a person with benchmark disability.
A specified disability is one recognised under the Act. A benchmark disability, on the other hand, requires the person to satisfy the applicable statutory threshold and certification requirements.
The recognition of Thalassemia as a blood disorder therefore establishes the relevant category for assessment, but it does not eliminate the need to determine the individual’s percentage of disability.
The Court’s direction for a fresh medical assessment reflected this distinction.
The petitioner had produced a certificate recording a disability percentage exceeding 40%. However, the Medical Assessment Board had rejected her claim by relying on the absence of functional or locomotor disability.
The Bench found that the assessment had applied an incorrect legal approach. It therefore required the competent authority to conduct a fresh evaluation focused on the petitioner’s specified disability.
The new Board would have to assess the percentage of disability and determine whether the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria for benchmark disability under the Act.
This approach ensured that the petitioner’s claim would be examined according to the statutory framework rather than rejected on the basis of an unrelated disability category.
Relief granted by the High Court
After finding fault with the medical assessment, the Division Bench set aside the report prepared by the Medical Assessment Board.
The Court directed the authority concerned, including DMET, to constitute a fresh Medical Assessment Board.
The newly constituted Board was directed to examine the petitioner and assess the percentage of her disability so that her eligibility under the statutory framework could be determined.
The Court did not itself undertake the medical assessment or declare the petitioner conclusively eligible for reservation. Instead, it directed the competent authority to carry out a fresh evaluation in accordance with the legal priniples explained in the judgment.
The outcome therefore provided the petitioner with an opportunity