What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

Examiners may confuse the 1 June 2001 notification with the 2016 Act, or swap 'locomotor disability' with 'neurological disability' as per the article. Also, they may ask about the percentage of disability (45%) and whether it qualifies for reservation (yes, as it is >40%).

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: 45% locomotor disability, 1 June 2001 notification 2. Target this Nodal Body: Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment 3. Target this Legal Point: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Om Rathod v Director General of Health Services

PolitySocial_Issues

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 3 of 23

Delhi HC Quashes Railway Board Decision, Upholds UDID Card for 45% Locomotor Disability

Q: Which ministry issued the notification dated 1 June 2001 that defines 'locomotor disability' as including nervous system afflictions?

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, The notification dated 1 June 2001 was issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which is the nodal ministry for disability affairs in India. This notification specifically includes inability resulting from affliction of the musculoskeletal and/or nervous system under 'locomotor disability.'

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the Delhi High Court judgment on PwD candidature: 1. The court held that a valid UDID card certifying disability cannot be overruled by a subsequent medical examination. 2. The court relied on the precedent set in the case of Om Rathod v Director General of Health Services. 3. The court directed the Railway Board to consider the candidate's neurological condition as a locomotor disability under the ESE Rules, 2017. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 2, Statement 1 is correct as the court ruled that a UDID card cannot be contradicted by a medical board. Statement 2 is correct as the court cited the Om Rathod precedent. Statement 3 is incorrect because the court did not direct inclusion under ESE Rules; it set aside the cancellation based on the UDID card and the 2001 notification.

Q: According to the Delhi High Court judgment, what was the percentage of locomotor disability certified in the UDID card of the UPSC ESE candidate?

45%, The article explicitly states that the UDID card certified the candidate's locomotor disability to the extent of 45%. This percentage is above the 40% threshold required for reservation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Q: What is the primary legal principle established by the Delhi High Court in this judgment regarding disability certificates?

A valid disability certificate or UDID card cannot be overruled by a subsequent medical examination., The court, relying on the Om Rathod precedent, held that a person with a valid disability certificate cannot be subjected to a medical examination that concludes contrary to the certificate. This ensures the finality and sanctity of the certification process under the RPwD Act, 2016.

Polity Social IssuesCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

28 Sept 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:45% locomotor disability1 June 2001 notificationESE 2017Om Rathod v Director General of Health Services

Bodies:Delhi High CourtRailway BoardCentral Administrative TribunalUPSCMinistry of Social Justice and Empowerment

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.Delhi HC overrules Railway Board and CAT, protects candidature of UPSC ESE candidate Manish Kumar with 45% locomotor disability.

2.Court held that a valid UDID card and disability certificate cannot be contradicted by a subsequent medical examination.

3.Judgment relies on Om Rathod v Director General of Health Services precedent and the Ministry of Social Justice notification dated 1 June 2001.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Railway Board's cancellation of a UPSC ESE candidate's candidature, ruling that a valid UDID card certifying 45% locomotor disability cannot be overruled by a medical board. This judgment reinforces the legal sanctity of disability certificates under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and is a landmark for PwD recruitment in government services.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Disability %45% locomotor disability

BenchJustices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar

Key Notification1 June 2001 - Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

Key PrecedentOm Rathod v Director General of Health Services

1-Minute Revision

›Disability %: 45% locomotor disability
›Bench: Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar
›Target this Data: 45% locomotor disability, 1 June 2001 notification
›Target this Nodal Body: Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
›Target this Legal Point: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Om Rathod v Director General of Health Services

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Court Overrules Railway Board

Delhi HC sets aside the Railway Board and CAT decision to cancel Manish Kumar's UPSC ESE candidature due to his neurological condition.

🆔

UDID Card Prevails Over Medical Board

The court held that a government-issued UDID card certifying 45% locomotor disability cannot be rejected by a subsequent medical examination.

📜

Precedent & Notification Cited

The judgment relied on the Om Rathod precedent and the Ministry of Social Justice notification of 1 June 2001 defining locomotor disability.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Manish Kumar cleared the UPSC Engineering Services Examination (ESE) 2017 prelims, mains, and personality test. However, a Railway Board medical board opined he had 'Generalised Dystonia with Myoclonus and Dysarthria,' a neurological condition not listed in the ESE Rules 2017, leading to cancellation of his candidature.

Core Analysis & Implications

The Delhi HC ruled that a valid disability certificate and UDID card from the Government of India, certifying 45% locomotor disability, cannot be overridden by a medical board's opinion. The court cited the Ministry of Social Justice notification of 1 June 2001, which includes nervous system afflictions under 'locomotor disability.' This strengthens the legal protection for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in recruitment.

Judicial Precedent & Legal Principle

Relying on Om Rathod v Director General of Health Services, the court established that a person with a valid disability certificate cannot be subjected to a medical examination that contradicts the certificate. This principle ensures that the certification process under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is final and binding for recruitment purposes.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

This judgment sets a binding precedent for all government recruitment bodies, including Railway Boards and UPSC, to honor UDID cards and disability certificates. It may lead to revision of service rules (like ESE Rules 2017) to explicitly include neurological conditions as disabilities, ensuring no future discrimination against PwD candidates.

Key Facts at a Glance

Disability %45% locomotor disability

BenchJustices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar

Key Notification1 June 2001 - Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

Key PrecedentOm Rathod v Director General of Health Services

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Which ministry issued the notification dated 1 June 2001 that defines 'locomotor disability' as including nervous system afflictions?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, SSC

Consider the following statements regarding the Delhi High Court judgment on PwD candidature:

1. The court held that a valid UDID card certifying disability cannot be overruled by a subsequent medical examination.

2. The court relied on the precedent set in the case of Om Rathod v Director General of Health Services.

3. The court directed the Railway Board to consider the candidate's neurological condition as a locomotor disability under the ESE Rules, 2017.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, Banking, SSC

According to the Delhi High Court judgment, what was the percentage of locomotor disability certified in the UDID card of the UPSC ESE candidate?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, SSC, Banking

What is the primary legal principle established by the Delhi High Court in this judgment regarding disability certificates?

All 25 MCQs ▸

Read original article from Indian Express

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →Social IssuesView Topic MCQs →

PreviousRight to Vote: Statutory vs Fundamental Right Debate After EC Rift & Goa Voter Exclusion Next Poompuhar Excavations Reveal West Asian Trade Links; Conscience in Public Service; AI in Disaster Management

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

Delhi HC Upholds NMC Rule Barring Foreign Medical Grads with Multi-College Degrees from FMGE

The Delhi High Court has upheld the National Medical Commission's decision to bar Indian students who obtained medical degrees after studying across multiple foreign institutions from appearing in the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE). The court ruled that such 'fragmented education' compromises medical quality and is not in public interest, reinforcing the need for embassy attestation of foreign degrees.

Polity Current Affairs

Delhi HC Releases 2 Life Convicts Citing Chekhov; SRB Rejection 'Arbitrary' Under Article 21

The Delhi High Court ordered the release of two life-term convicts, holding that prolonged imprisonment 'kills slowly' and that Sentence Review Boards cannot reject early release pleas based on stereotyped reasoning. The judgment reinforces Article 21 rights and sets important guidelines for evaluating post-conviction conduct.

Polity Current Affairs

Delhi HC Directs Formulation of SOP for Arresting Transgender Persons; NHRC Advisory 2.0 Referred

The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre and Delhi Police to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the arrest, detention, search, and interrogation of transgender persons, citing a critical legal vacuum. The court relied on the NHRC's 'Advisory for Ensuring the Welfare of Transgender Persons, 2.0' issued in May 2026, and highlighted a specific incident of rights violation. This is a key development for Polity & Social Justice syllabus, focusing on fundamental rights (Article 21), the Transgender Persons Act, and the role of NHRC.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Upholds NCTE's Power for TEI Performance Reports; 450 B.Ed Colleges Show-Caused

Supreme Court upheld NCTE's power to require annual Performance Appraisal Reports from Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs), overturning a 2023 Delhi HC ruling. Amid quality concerns, West Bengal issued show-cause notices to 450 B.Ed colleges. This ruling strengthens regulatory oversight crucial for NEP 2020's teacher education reforms.

Polity Current Affairs

Health Ministry Backs Same-Sex Partners' Medical Decision Rights Under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

The Union Health Ministry has told the Delhi High Court that excluding same-sex partners from making medical decisions for each other solely based on sexual orientation is unethical. This marks a significant administrative shift, though the government maintains that 'spouse' under Indian marriage laws only applies to heterosexual couples, creating a nuanced legal landscape for exam aspirants.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Upholds NCTE Notice: TEIs Must File Annual Appraisal Reports Under RTE Act

The Supreme Court has upheld the authority of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to require all Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) to file annual Performance Appraisal Reports. This judgment reinforces the regulatory power of NCTE, links the RTE Act's academic authority provisions, and expands the concept of 'duty-bearers' to include TEIs and NCTE itself. For exam aspirants, this is a key case in education governance, statutory interpretation, and fundamental rights.

Polity Current Affairs

Govt to SC: Only Parliament Can Extend Creamy Layer to SC/ST; Cites Article 341, E V Chinnaiah Case

The government has told the Supreme Court that extending the creamy layer principle to SC/ST is a policy decision for Parliament alone. This reaffirms that reservation for SC/ST is based on historical social criteria, not just economic status, and the creamy layer concept currently applies only to OBCs.

Polity Current Affairs

Task Force Recommends Inflation-Adjusted Relief Hike, Counselling Under SC/ST Act

A government task force has recommended major changes to the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, including inflation-indexed relief hikes, mandatory counselling, and 24-hour FIR reporting. Separately, the NCST has proposed legal safeguards to protect tribal livelihoods during land disputes and curb counter FIRs. These proposals are critical for aspirants as they touch upon the SC/ST Act, a high-yield topic for Prelims and Mains in Polity and Social Justice.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Delhi HC Quashes Railway Board Decision, Upholds UDID Card for 45% Locomotor Disability

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Court Overrules Railway Board

UDID Card Prevails Over Medical Board

Precedent & Notification Cited

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Judicial Precedent & Legal Principle

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance