Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Education LawDelhi High Court

Aashiya vs. National Medical Commission through its Secretary & Ors. and connected matters

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026:DHC:8309Decided 24 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
W.P.(C) 12368/2026, W.P.(C) 12499/2026CNR: DLHC010398242026
Justice Jasmeet Singh

Background

Aashiya, a candidate with a 61% locomotor disability recorded on her government-issued UDID card, cleared NEET (UG) 2026 in the PwBD (Persons with Benchmark Disabilities) category. A Primary Disability Assessment Medical Board re-quantified her disability at only 16%, and an Appellate Disability Assessment Board confirmed this figure, making her ineligible for the PwBD reservation and causing her to miss the first round of counselling. Her case was heard together with a similarly situated candidate, Shivam Kumar, because the two petitions raised an identical legal question.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that under the applicable National Medical Commission guidelines and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, a candidate's UDID card is the primary evidence of the existence, nature, and extent of disability, and the Medical Assessment Boards' role is confined to assessing "functional competency" (the ability to complete the MBBS course): they have no power to independently re-quantify or reduce the disability percentage recorded on the UDID card. Since both boards had actually found the petitioner functionally capable of pursuing MBBS, yet used their own reduced disability percentage to deny her PwBD reservation, the Court set aside both boards' certificates and directed that she be allowed to participate in the next available round of NEET counselling under the PwBD category, based on her UDID-recorded disability.

Lesson Learnt

Government-issued disability certificates (UDID cards) cannot be second-guessed or reduced by medical boards conducting admission assessments: such boards may only assess whether a candidate can functionally complete a course, not revisit the certified degree of disability itself.

Aashiya vs. National Medical Commission through its Secretary & Ors. and connected matters – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware