Introduction:
In a significant development concerning the rights of transgender persons in higher education, the Karnataka High Court reaffirmed the constitutional commitment to equality, dignity, and inclusion by directing two law colleges to facilitate the admission process of a transgender student who faced barriers in applying for admission to a three-year LL.B. course. The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in the appeal titled NLSIU v. Mugil Anbu Vasantha & Others (W.A. No. 96 of 2025).
The matter arose from a long-standing legal battle initiated by a transgender student seeking effective implementation of the Karnataka State Policy on Transgenders, 2017, and reservation benefits for transgender persons in educational institutions. The student had originally approached the Court in 2023 after being denied admission to a law programme despite claiming entitlement to affirmative measures and equal treatment under constitutional and statutory frameworks protecting transgender persons.
The litigation highlighted broader systemic issues faced by transgender individuals in accessing education. Despite judicial recognition of transgender rights and the progressive legal framework developed after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA), practical barriers continue to impede access to educational institutions. These obstacles often arise in the form of inadequate admission procedures, absence of appropriate gender identification options in application forms, and administrative practices that fail to accommodate the unique circumstances of transgender applicants.
Earlier proceedings in the case had revealed that although an interim order had been passed in favour of the student, the commencement of the academic year prevented immediate admission to the preferred institution. The Court subsequently explored alternative means of ensuring that the student would not continue to lose valuable academic years due to prolonged litigation and administrative obstacles.
During the course of proceedings, the Karnataka State Law University (KSLU) informed the Court that it would endeavour to accommodate the student in one of its affiliated colleges depending on seat availability and merit position. Acting on this assurance, the Court previously directed that seats be reserved in favour of the student in two institutions, namely BMS College of Law and Seshadripuram Law College.
However, despite these directions, further difficulties emerged when the student attempted to pursue admission. BMS College of Law allegedly refused to issue an application form on the ground that the student exceeded the prescribed age limit. Simultaneously, Seshadripuram Law College provided an application form but the form contained only “male” and “female” options in the gender category, making it difficult for the student to accurately identify their gender identity and complete the application process.
The case therefore raised important questions concerning institutional obligations toward transgender applicants, the practical implementation of constitutional guarantees, and the extent to which educational institutions must adapt administrative procedures to ensure meaningful inclusion.
The proceedings before the High Court thus extended beyond an individual admission dispute and evolved into a broader examination of whether educational institutions are adequately accommodating transgender persons in accordance with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Arguments of the Parties:
The transgender student, appearing through counsel, sought specific directions from the High Court requiring the concerned law colleges to accept and process applications for admission to the three-year LL.B. programme. It was submitted that despite previous orders of the Court reserving seats in the preferred colleges, practical impediments created by the institutions had prevented the student from effectively exercising the benefit of those orders.
With respect to BMS College of Law, the petitioner contended that the institution had refused to issue an application form by relying upon an alleged age restriction. According to the petitioner, no such disqualification was expressly provided under the applicable university regulations governing admissions to the three-year law course. The refusal to even issue an application form effectively prevented consideration of the student’s candidature and undermined the earlier directions issued by the Court.
Regarding Seshadripuram Law College, the petitioner argued that although an application form had been made available, the form itself failed to recognise the existence of transgender persons. The gender category contained only male and female options, thereby excluding transgender applicants from properly identifying themselves. This omission, it was submitted, created a practical impossibility for the student in submitting the application in a manner consistent with their legally recognised gender identity.
The petitioner placed substantial reliance upon the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA). It was argued that the NALSA decision recognised transgender persons as a distinct gender category and directed governments and institutions to ensure equal treatment and inclusion. The petitioner contended that the constitutional recognition granted by the Supreme Court necessarily required educational institutions to include transgender options in official application forms and administrative procedures.
The counsel further submitted that most government departments and public authorities have already incorporated transgender categories in their forms and records. Educational institutions, particularly those imparting legal education, were expected to be at the forefront of implementing constitutional values and should not continue to maintain exclusionary administrative practices.
The petitioner emphasized that the absence of transgender categories in admission forms not only creates procedural difficulties but also symbolically excludes transgender persons from mainstream educational opportunities. Such omissions, according to the petitioner, run contrary to constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
On the other hand, the educational institutions and university authorities did not directly dispute the student’s entitlement to apply for admission. However, concerns were raised regarding procedural requirements and eligibility criteria governing admissions.
In relation to BMS College of Law, the institution relied upon age-related considerations while declining to issue an application form. Although detailed arguments regarding the legal basis of the age restriction were not elaborately recorded at this stage, the institution maintained that age criteria constituted a relevant factor in determining eligibility.
As regards Seshadripuram Law College, there was no categorical refusal to provide an application form. Nevertheless, the existing format of the application form contained only conventional gender categories. The issue therefore centered on whether the absence of a specific transgender column could be treated as an impediment to the submission and acceptance of the application.
The Karnataka State Law University, which had earlier undertaken to explore avenues for accommodating the petitioner in affiliated institutions, remained involved in ensuring compliance with the Court’s earlier directions. The University was also expected to communicate the Court’s orders to the concerned colleges and facilitate implementation.
The competing submissions required the Court to determine whether procedural deficiencies in application forms or reliance upon disputed eligibility criteria could be permitted to frustrate the educational aspirations of a transgender student who had already secured favourable interim protection from the Court.
Court’s Judgment:
The Karnataka High Court adopted a pragmatic and rights-oriented approach while addressing the difficulties encountered by the transgender student.
At the outset, the Division Bench noted that the petitioner had attempted to apply to both BMS College of Law and Seshadripuram Law College pursuant to earlier directions issued by the Court. However, the applications had not been duly received or processed because of the obstacles created by the respective institutions.
Addressing the issue concerning Seshadripuram Law College, the Court observed that the absence of a specific transgender category in the application form could not be permitted to defeat the student’s right to seek admission. The Bench orally remarked that there would be no difficulty in writing “transgender” against the gender column even if the form expressly mentioned only male and female options.
The Court thus adopted a practical interpretation aimed at ensuring that procedural formats do not become instruments of exclusion. The Bench recognized that application forms are intended to facilitate admissions rather than create barriers. Consequently, the absence of a separate transgender category was not considered a valid reason for refusing to receive or process an application submitted by a transgender candidate.
The Court also observed that where application forms do not adequately provide for transgender identification, candidates can furnish additional information clarifying their gender identity. This approach reflects the Court’s broader commitment to substantive equality rather than rigid adherence to administrative formalities.
With respect to BMS College of Law, the Court took note of the institution’s refusal to issue an application form based on age-related considerations. Since the legality and applicability of the age criterion remained a matter requiring further examination, the Bench considered it appropriate to grant provisional relief.
Accordingly, the Court directed BMS College of Law to issue the application form to the petitioner on a provisional basis and permit the student to apply for admission to the three-year LL.B. programme. This direction ensured that the petitioner’s candidature would not be defeated merely because questions concerning eligibility remained pending adjudication.
The Court further directed Seshadripuram Law College to accept the petitioner’s application if submitted. By doing so, the Bench ensured that both institutions would facilitate participation of the petitioner in the admission process pending further orders.
Recognising the role of the Karnataka State Law University in supervising affiliated institutions, the Court directed the University to communicate the order to the concerned colleges and ensure compliance. This direction underscored the University’s responsibility in implementing judicial directions and promoting uniform standards across affiliated institutions.
Although the Court’s order was interlocutory in nature, its significance extends beyond the immediate dispute. The observations of the Bench reflect an understanding that procedural mechanisms must evolve to accommodate the diversity of identities recognised under constitutional law.
The Court’s approach is consistent with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the NALSA judgment, which recognised the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender and directed governments to take affirmative measures for their social inclusion. The NALSA decision treated gender identity as an integral component of personal autonomy, dignity, and individual freedom protected under the Constitution.
The Karnataka High Court’s observations also resonate with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. By ensuring that a transgender student is not denied access to legal education because of inadequacies in administrative forms or disputed procedural barriers, the Court reaffirmed that constitutional rights must be meaningful in practice and not merely theoretical in nature.
The order further demonstrates judicial sensitivity towards the educational challenges faced by transgender individuals, particularly those who have already lost valuable academic years due to systemic exclusion. The Court’s intervention sought to prevent further prejudice while ensuring that the admission process remains open and accessible.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on June 21, 2026. While the final adjudication remains pending, the interim directions represent an important step toward ensuring that transgender students are not denied educational opportunities because institutions fail to accommodate their identities within existing administrative frameworks. The decision serves as a reminder that educational institutions must continuously align their procedures with constitutional values of dignity, inclusion, and equal opportunity.