'Two Years Have Lapsed': Karnataka High Court Pushes State To Expedite Transgender Reservation Policy In Educational Institutions

A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T was hearing an appeal filed by the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) challenging a single judge's order directing the university to provide 0.5% reservation to transgender persons in admissions.

The Court noted that, although Karnataka had framed the Karnataka State Policy for Transgenders, 2017—which, according to the State, was among the first such policies in the country and provides for 1% horizontal reservation in public employment—it had not yet been implemented in the sphere of educational admissions.

Questioning the delay in finalising a policy, the Bench observed:

“We are in the realm of public interest now… In 2024 onwards, it's [the policy] on the anvil. Can we speed it up so that it becomes a reality in the current year and the notification is issued? They [NLSIU] say that they could not do so because the policy was not there. But two years have lapsed.”

Responding to the Court's query, the State submitted that while the 2017 policy mandates horizontal reservation for transgender persons in employment, it does not extend to educational admissions.

Counsel for the respondent-student, however, pointed out that the single judge had afforded the State ample opportunity to formulate a policy. Referring to the memorandum of appeal, counsel submitted,

“At page 590 of the memorandum of appeal, the single judge has given adequate opportunity to formulate a policy. The Law Department, Finance Department, Social Justice Department, and Women and Child Welfare Department had, in 2024, submitted opinions stating that this could be done.”

During the hearing, the Court also referred to the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which obligate the appropriate government to take steps to secure the full participation and inclusion of transgender persons in society, including by formulating welfare policies and prohibiting discrimination in education.

Referring to the respondent-student's grievance, the Bench orally observed, “…He [the respondent-student] is insisting on reservation being introduced because the Act provides for it.”

The State, however, contended that the legislation does not expressly mandate reservation in educational institutions. “It does not seem to be a direct mandate for reservation,” the State submitted.

The State further clarified that the respondent's immediate concerns related to eligibility criteria, fee structures and restrictions on admission. “…The petitioner's grievance is this… his concerns are eligibility criteria, fees and restrictions on admission,” the State submitted.

Concurring that efforts were being made to facilitate the student's admission, the Bench nevertheless reiterated the need for an expeditious policy framework. “Why don't we speed up the policy formulation so that others also get the benefit of it?” it said.

The Court also observed that the State should provide reservation benefits even if they are not fully utilised. “…If a benefit is given and it is not utilised, it can revert to the general category. People are available; give them the benefit…”

Seeking a week's time to make recommendations to the government and expedite the process, the State submitted that data regarding the transgender community was available and that a Minority Gender Survey had already been conducted.

The respondent-student, however, raised concerns regarding the survey, submitting, “The survey they are relying on… an interim order was passed stating that the survey was conducted by violating the dignity of transgender persons…”

For context, the Karnataka High Court had last year restrained the State Government and officials conducting the transgender survey from adopting any "strip and search" method for identification, holding that participation in the exercise must be strictly voluntary. The Court had also directed that all information collected during the survey be kept confidential.

Separately, the State assured the Court that the respondent-student need not be apprehensive about securing admission to a law college in Karnataka.

The student had earlier contended that his admission was not fully secure and remained vulnerable to future challenges. Addressing these concerns, the State submitted:

“…With regard to Karnataka Law University, he need not be worried; there is a court order… he has been litigating before this Hon'ble Court. When the matter is sub judice, reserving one seat each in two different colleges ensures that third-party rights will not be affected.”

The matter has now been posted for further hearing on July 17.

The appeal arises from a writ petition filed by a transgender student in 2023, seeking directions to implement the Karnataka State policy On Transgenders, 2017 and provide 0.5 per cent reservations for transgenders in course admissions. The transgender student was earlier denied admission to NLSIU, Bangalore.

Since the academic year for 2023-2024 had already commenced, despite a favourable interim order for the student, NLSIU had earlier told the court in appeal that it can't provide a slot for the aggrieved student. Afterwards, the court sought information about whether the transgender student can be admitted in any law colleges under the Karnataka State Law University expeditiously since the student had already lost valuable academic years.

In an earlier order passed in the appeal, the Court had recorded an undertaking by the Karnataka State Law University (KSLU) [R7] to 'endeavor to accommodate' the petitioner in any of the affiliated colleges, including BMS College of Law and Seshadripuram Law College, 'depending upon his position in the consolidated merit list and the availability of seats under the relevant categories'.

Pursuant to the student expressing preference for these two colleges, the division bench had on an earlier date directed KSLU to 'reserve a seat each in Sl.No.4 (BMS College of Law) and Sl.No.6 (Seshadripuram Law College) in favour of the petitioner'.

Case Title: NLSIU v. Mugil Anbu Vasantha & Ors.

Case No: WA 96/2025