Karnataka High Court Impleads State Ministry And Law Department In NLSIU's Appeal On Transgender Reservation In Admissions

The division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Rajesh Rai K noted that the Ministry and the department would have to be made parties to the proceedings to get instructions on whether financial aid and admission could be given to the writ petitioner-candidate in any of the law colleges in Karnataka.

“To address whether the first respondent (petitioner) can be extended the financial aid as well admission in any of the law colleges in the Karnataka. AAG shall get instruction as to what measures can be taken in regard to the petitioner (R1) in regard to admission and financial aid. Relist the appeal on December 2,” the court said.

In July, the court had directed the university to place the issue of granting reservation in admission to Transgender persons, before its Executive council which is likely to meet in the month of August-September.

When the matter was taken up today, Senior Advocate K G Raghavan, appearing for the University, placed the minutes of the meeting before the court. He submitted that the appeal was not an adversarial litigation and the challenge was only with respect to the admission of the petitioner.

Raghavan placed reliance on Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court had suggested all educational institutions to ensure that they respect gender identity, right to recreation, and participation of transgender persons and inclusively accommodate transgender persons in the academic, cultural and physical environment of the institution. Raghavan argued that the above was only a suggestion issued by the Supreme Court and not a direction.

He also pointed out that the Supreme Court had constituted a Committee after noting that the state had failed to implement the law in letter and spirit. He submitted that the committee, headed by Justice Asha Menon (retired judge of Delhi High Court) was to formulate an equal opportunity policy for the protection of the rights of transgender persons. He contended that since the committee had been appointed, the court should await the result of the committee.

When the court pointed out that the petitioner could not wait for the result of the committee, Raghavan argued that the petitioner was given an opportunity to apply before and chose not to. He argued that the petitioner could not seek admission to the 2025-26 academic year.

The writ petitioner, on the other hand, argued that the Jane Kaushik judgment was with respect to the issue of employment and that the present case would be governed by the NALSA judgment where the Supreme Court had recorded that transgender persons are entitled for reservation. The petitioner pointed that the financial aid by the university did not take into consideration the specific situation of transgender persons, and that it was denied to the petitioner.

The court then enquired if the university had to await the State Government's decision on reservation, Raghavan submitted that there needed to be clarity regarding the number of transgender persons, proportion of reservations etc. He also submitted that it had to be seen whether the reservation had to be given horizontally or vertically.

To this, the court remarked that it was rhetoric that even after the 2014 judgment, no reservation had been provided.

“Even after so many things since 2014, what is happening is rhetoric… It cannot be less than 1 percent. SC has directed State and Central govt that there shall be reservation. The least amount of reservation that can be provided is 1 seat, atleast that could have been done,” the bench remarked.

The Additional Advocate General informed that the state was giving 1% horizontal reservation across all categories with effect from July 6, 2021 by amending the General recruitment rules for employment. He informed the court that as of now, there was no reservation in educational institutions.

With respect to the issue of fee waiver, the AAG informed that the Woman and Child Welfare Department was implementing the reservation and it had to be seen whether any assistance could be given to the petitioner in the next academic year.

The court thus impleaded the Ministry and the Law department and directed the matter to be relisted on December 2.

Case Title: National Law School of India University AND Mugil Anbu Vasantha & Others

Case No: WA 96/2025.