'Been 12 Yrs Since NALSA Judgment': Karnataka High Court Questions State Over Delay In Transgender Reservation In Educational Institutions

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (July 17) expressed strong displeasure over the State government's failure to implement reservation for transgender persons in educational institutions, observing that nearly 12 years have passed since the Supreme Court's landmark decision in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014).

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) against a single judge's order directing the University to provide 0.5 per cent reservation to transgender persons in admissions.

Questioning the delay in extending reservation to educational institutions, the Bench observed:

“...This is the direction of the apex court... It is 12 years in the making now... We feel that it's about time that positive directions are issued.”

The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in NALSA recognised transgender persons as the "third gender" and directed governments to extend reservation to them in educational institutions and public employment.

During the hearing, the Bench noted that Karnataka was among the first States to implement reservation for transgender persons in public employment, but had yet to extend similar benefits in the sphere of education.

“Can the State say that it is still contemplating? It was the first State to implement reservation in the employment sector. Does that mean, the education sector, it can wait?” the Court orally remarked.

The Bench further questioned the reason for the delay, asking, “Can there be delay in notifying reservation in matters of admission? What is the reason for delay?”

Emphasising the binding nature of the NALSA ruling, the Court observed:

“...There is no policy delay issue, there is a clear direction by the apex court. The apex court judgment has to prevail. If it says that there has to be reservation with regards to education also, extend reservation to admission to educational institutions and public employments, it is said in the judgment.”

The State Government informed the Court that, pursuant to earlier directions, a seat had been reserved for the petitioner in a law college affiliated to Karnataka State Law University (KSLU). KSLU submitted that the admission notification would be issued once the degree results are published.

The transgender student however, appearing in person, argued that the absence of a reservation policy and adequate procedural safeguards continued to adversely affect transgender candidates. He relied on Rules 5, 10 and 11 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2022.

“...It brings into question my sustenance within the educational institutions for the next three years [even after admission]. The procedures need to be brought in line with NALSA and the Transgender Protection Act,” the student submitted.

The student had earlier filed a memo seeking interim relief, setting out ten measures, including preserving seats for transgender applicants, removing age restrictions, providing hostels and toilets of choice, granting a minimum 50 per cent fee concession, ensuring dignity and privacy, and simplifying documentation requirements.

Urging the Court to issue interim directions pending formulation of a reservation policy, the student submitted, “My submission is here that reservation should be couched in fair and reasonable procedure and it should illuminate the reservation. We don't have reservation or reasonable procedure now. At least until reservation policy is decided by the State or directions are issued by the Court, the ten points that I have provided as an interim, if the State doesn't find any infirmities in those 10 points, directions may be issued...”

Pointing out that the State had not filed objections to the proposed measures, the student sought immediate implementation of the safeguards.

Responding to the submissions, the Bench observed, “Nobody will have any objection... This is what the apex court says.”

The Court also praised the petitioner for conducting the case in person and expressed its concern that the student's admission should not be further delayed.

“We want to make sure that his admission fructifies and he is given the benefits mentioned in the NALSA judgment. I am saying this as a person who has been on the Bench for the last 12 years, to someone who is very deserving, as a party-in-person conducting a case with such responsibility, we want to see something is done... The appeal is filed since there is no policy for the State government for reservation,” the Bench observed.

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.

Earlier this week, the High Court had urged the State government to expedite formulation of a comprehensive policy on reservation for transgender persons in educational institutions, noting that nearly two years had elapsed since the proposal had been circulated among various government departments.

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