In a significant and progressive move, the Karnataka High Court has directed the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) in Bengaluru to implement an interim reservation of 0.5% for transgender persons in all its academic programs. Along with this reservation, the court has also mandated a full waiver of tuition fees for transgender students who are admitted under this category. This order was passed in response to a writ petition filed by a transgender student who faced the threat of admission cancellation due to her inability to pay the complete fee amount. The ruling reflects the judiciary’s growing concern for ensuring equitable access to premier educational institutions for marginalized communities, particularly transgender individuals who continue to face systemic discrimination and exclusion.
The background of the case involves a transgender student who had secured admission to a course at NLSIU but was unable to pay the tuition fees in full. The university, while permitting provisional admission under an earlier interim order, issued a warning that the admission would be cancelled if the remaining fees were not paid. The petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that the university’s fee demand and the absence of a dedicated transgender quota violated constitutional protections of equality and dignity. The court examined the matter and concluded that NLSIU’s failure to provide reservation or financial support for transgender persons was contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the landmark National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment.
In its detailed order, the Karnataka High Court criticized the university’s inaction and reluctance to proactively support the transgender community. The bench held that NLSIU, being a public institution and a recipient of state benefits, could not escape its responsibility to implement inclusive and affirmative measures. The court highlighted that the NALSA judgment had explicitly recognized transgender persons as a socially and educationally backward class entitled to reservation in education and public employment. Therefore, the absence of any institutional policy at NLSIU to accommodate and support transgender students was not only regressive but also a violation of constitutional mandates.
To rectify the immediate harm caused to the petitioner, and to ensure that no other transgender student faces similar discrimination, the High Court ordered that NLSIU must reserve at least 0.5% of its total seats for transgender students in all its programs as an interim measure. The court clarified that this reservation would not impact the existing sanctioned strength of the university, meaning the reserved seats could be treated as supernumerary until a formal policy was adopted. The court further directed that any transgender student admitted under this quota should receive a complete waiver of tuition fees. The university was asked to either utilize internal resources or seek assistance from the state or central governments to fulfill this requirement.
The High Court also addressed the university's argument that only its Executive Council could make decisions regarding admissions and reservations. The court rejected this argument, stating that while internal governance structures must be respected, they cannot be used to delay or deny the implementation of constitutional principles. The bench emphasized that when fundamental rights are at stake, particularly those of a vulnerable group like transgender persons, judicial intervention is not only justified but necessary. The court underscored that institutional autonomy cannot be a shield against fulfilling obligations under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, non-discrimination, and the right to dignity.
Importantly, the court noted that several Indian states, including Karnataka, have already implemented policies to provide reservation for transgender persons in public employment and education. The court drew parallels with Karnataka’s own 1% reservation for transgender persons in government jobs and observed that a 0.5% reservation in an academic institution like NLSIU was a proportionate and reasonable measure. The bench acknowledged that the number was interim and could be revised through proper policy deliberation by the university's governing bodies. However, it insisted that a stop-gap measure was essential until such formal mechanisms were put in place.
In its concluding remarks, the High Court underscored the urgency of ensuring substantive equality for transgender persons in access to education. It reiterated that inclusivity in higher education is a critical component of social justice and that premier institutions like NLSIU must lead by example. The court’s observations carried a broader message—affirmative action is not merely about numbers or technical compliance, but about transforming institutions into truly representative and accessible spaces for all.
Following the ruling, the university is expected to comply with the interim directions while also initiating the process of formulating a comprehensive transgender policy. The order may prompt other leading institutions across the country to revisit their own admission and fee structures in light of their constitutional obligations toward the transgender community. The High Court’s ruling serves as a reminder that justice must be both timely and transformative, especially when it involves historically marginalized populations.
The case is also notable for its symbolic significance. For the first time, a transgender student had directly challenged one of India’s most prestigious legal institutions over exclusionary practices. The court's decision has set a precedent that inclusion is not negotiable, and elite status cannot exempt institutions from their duty to uphold the values enshrined in the Constitution. It represents a progressive step toward realizing the vision of an egalitarian society where no student is denied the opportunity to learn, grow, and contribute based on their gender identity.
The High Court’s judgment has also triggered discussions in academic and legal circles about the broader need for institutional reforms. Legal scholars, educationists, and human rights advocates have welcomed the decision as a watershed moment in the fight for transgender rights in higher education. It is expected to become a reference point in future cases involving inclusion, diversity, and access to education. As the university begins to draft a permanent policy and the government considers financial and legislative support mechanisms, this judgment marks a critical turning point in shaping an equitable academic environment for transgender students in India.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.