Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court, in a significant development on February 16, 2025, ruled on the matter concerning the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) and its non-implementation of the Supreme Court’s directions regarding transgender students. The case, titled National Law School of India University AND Mugil Anbu Vasantha & Others (WA 96/2025), saw the petition filed by Mugil Anbu Vasantha, a transgender individual, seeking a reservation for transgender candidates and financial assistance for their admission to the University’s 3-year LL.B. course. The petition further challenged the University’s decision not to admit Vasantha to the current academic year and requested that the State policy on transgender reservations be enforced. The single judge had already directed NLSIU to implement a reservation policy with a 0.5% allocation for transgender candidates, along with a fee waiver until the institution enacts a permanent reservation policy in line with the 2014 Supreme Court directions under the NALSA case (National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India). Despite this, the University filed an appeal, seeking a stay on the single judge’s order, which the division bench of the Karnataka High Court heard and ruled on.

Arguments of Both Sides:

During the appeal proceedings, Senior Advocate K G Raghavan, representing NLSIU, strongly argued against the implementation of the interim reservation order issued by the single judge. Raghavan contended that the decision of the single judge was detrimental to the University’s merit-based admission process. He emphasised that the petitioner’s plea regarding admission had become academic, given that the petitioner had not taken admission even after the court’s interim order, and the focus of the case now was on the implementation of the reservation policy for transgender individuals in general. He argued that the final decision on the issue of providing reservations for transgender students should be left to the University’s Executive Council, which consisted of legal experts. Furthermore, Raghavan claimed that granting interim reservations would disrupt the University’s admission process, which was structured to prioritise merit.

In contrast, the petitioner’s side, represented by Advocate Aditya Narayan, emphasised the urgent need for the University to comply with the Supreme Court’s order from the NALSA case and implement a reservation policy specifically designed for transgender students. The petitioner contended that while the University had taken pride in its measures to create an inclusive environment, there had been no significant steps towards the implementation of the directions in NALSA’s case. They argued that the failure to provide both a reservation policy and financial aid was discriminatory and a violation of constitutional guarantees of equality and opportunity, which hindered transgender individuals from pursuing higher education at prestigious institutions.

The petitioner further pleaded that without the provision of financial aid along with the reservation, the purpose of the reservation itself would be futile. The lack of a policy specifically tailored to transgender persons was noted as a significant barrier to their entry into legal education at NLSIU.

Court’s Judgment:

The Karnataka High Court division bench, comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice T M Nadaf, heard the arguments presented by both parties and decided not to stay the single judge’s order. While the University had sought a stay, arguing that it would alter the character of the institution, the court was unconvinced. The bench observed that the issue at hand was crucial for the equal representation of transgender students in higher education. The division bench stated that it would hear the matter further on March 6, 2025, but refrained from granting a stay on the implementation of the reservation policy as directed by the single judge.

Importantly, the court issued an oral direction to the petitioner not to file a contempt petition against the University for non-implementation of the single judge’s order, advising that such an action should be refrained from. The court also directed both parties to file their pleadings by March 6, ensuring that the hearing would proceed in due course.

In its decision, the bench took note of the University’s failure to disclose whether steps had been taken to establish a reservation policy and provide financial aid specifically for transgender individuals. The court emphasised that NLSIU had been unsuccessful in ensuring sufficient representation for transgender students despite its efforts to foster an inclusive environment. The bench ruled that the University’s failure to adopt the necessary measures constituted a violation of constitutional provisions for equality and non-discrimination.

The single judge, in its earlier order, had directed NLSIU to implement the Supreme Court’s directions from the NALSA case, which called for the creation of reservation quotas and financial assistance for transgender students in educational institutions. Until such a policy was put in place, the University was directed to provide a 0.5% reservation for transgender candidates, along with a fee waiver, applicable for the current academic year.