Madras High Court Asks TN Ambedkar Law University To Permit Student With Chronic Schizophrenia To Write Exams

The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to permit a student with chronic schizophrenia to write Semester Exams Justice Anand Venkatesh was hearing a plea by the student seeking exemption from paying the tuition fee as a person with disability. While allowing the student to write the exam as an interim measure, the court made it clear that it would not enure any right to the student for seeking the relief claimed for. The court asked the University to keep the answer papers in a sealed cover until further orders are passed in the plea. “For the present, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to write the examinations commencing from 03.11.2025. It is made clear that this interim direction will not enure any right on the petitioner to seek for the reliefs that have been sought for in the writ petition. The answer papers shall be kept in a sealed cover by the respondent University, until further orders are passed in this writ petition,” the court said. The court was hearing a plea by a law student, pursuing the three-year LLB (Hons) Degree at the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University. The student submitted that he had applied for the course in 2024, and the University's prospectus stated that differently abled candidates, upon submission of a valid certificate issued by a competent authority, would be exempted from payment of tuition and special fee. The student submitted that he had applied for the course based on such information under the Special reservation Category for Autism and mental illness. Since the student could only produce a discharge summary by the Kovai Medical Hospital, which was not accepted by the University, he was allotted a seat under the Backward Class (Others) category. He pointed out that even in the allotment letter, the University had reiterated that differently-abled students would be exempted from payment of tuition fee and special fee, which created a legitimate expression. He further submitted that he had also approached the Chairman of Law Admissions, seeking to consider his candidature under PwD category and the chairman had granted time for him to produce a valid disability certificate. However, following this, when he produced a disability certificate from the Government Kilpauk Medical College stating that he had 10% permanent disability, it was not accepted by the university. The petitioner submitted that at a later point of time, he was informed by the University that only candidates with 40% or more disability would be eligible for fee exemption. The student submitted that after suffering another episode of Schizophrenia in March 2025, he was on continuous psychiatric follow up and his disability was now ascertained at 40%. Thereafter, the student submitted another representation, along with the certificate and continued to attend classes, believing that the matter was under consideration. However, this representation was rejected and the university then informed the student that he will not be permitted to write the exam due to non payment of fee. The student argued that the rejection was arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law and the university's conduct was an infringement of the student's rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. It was also submitted that the rejection violates the principles laid down in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and defeats the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The university, however, objected to the petition and argued that since the student was not allotted admission on the PwD category, there was no question of exemption of fees. It was submitted that the student had filed a similar plea against a previous rejection, and the plea was dismissed by the court. It was also submitted that the disability certificate being relied on by the student was granted subsequent to the earlier order of the court. The court, on considering the submissions, was inclined to permit the student to write the examination and ordered accordingly. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam Senior Counsel for Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan Counsel for Respondents: Mr. S. Sivashanmugam Standing Counsel Case Title: Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 388 Case No: WP No. 41497 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Madras High Court Asks TN Ambedkar Law University To Permit Student With Chronic Schizophrenia To Write Exams

Upasana Sajeev

Tags