Student With Benchmark Disability Entitled To Fee Waiver Despite Not Being Admitted Under PwD Quota: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of a law student with chronic schizophrenia by directing the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to provide fee waiver, as long as the student was within the 40% benchmark disability. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the Tamil Nadu Government and the university had introduced the welfare scheme, providing a fee waiver for persons with disabilities, but it was being extended only to the persons admitted in the 5% quota earmarked for persons with disabilities. The court noted that when the State intended to provide a fee waiver for persons with disabilities, such implementation could not be approached pedantically by clubbing it with a reservation. “The only constraint faced by the College is that the 5% quota earmarked for persons with disabilities has already been filled, and the fee waiver has been pre-approved, only in respect of those candidates. When the intention of the State of Tamil Nadu as well as the 2nd respondent is to provide fee waiver to persons with disabilities, its implementation same cannot be approached pedantically by clubbing it with reservation. Persons with disabilities require both reservation and welfare measures so as to provide them with equal opportunities to complete their education along with other candidates,” the court observed. 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. It was submitted that though the student was a differently abled person suffering from intellectual/mental disability, at the time of admission he was admitted in the Backward class quota as his disability had not crossed the benchmark of 40%. The student paid the fee for first year and thereafter, since his percentage of disability increased, he did not pay the fee for second year. When the student was not permitted to write the exam due to non-payment of fee, he had approached the court. As an interim order, the court had directed the University to allow the student to write the exam. The student submitted that as per the University's prospectus, differently abled students were entitled to waiver of fee. It was submitted that the student should also have been granted the same and the issue should have been considered within the framework of fundamental right to lie of differently abled persons. The university, on the other hand, submitted that it had provided reservation as per Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and 5% of seats had been reserved for persons with disabilities. The university submitted that since the student was not admitted under the quota, he could not claim waiver of fee. It was also submitted that merely because the petitioner's disability subsequently increased, the benefit of waiver could not be extended as the scheme did not expressly provide for the same. The court noted that the welfare scheme extended by the state and the university should not be tied up with the reservation scheme and thus directed the university to grant waiver of fee to the petitioner scheme, who had a benchmark disability of 40% presently. The court agreed with the petitioner that the issue should be considered as granting equal opportunity and would fall under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court also added that since the student had been pursuing his education despite his personal condition, every effort should be taken to ensure that he completed his education and every opportunity is provided so that he could lead a normal life like any other person. The court also added that the illness of the student could be periodically examined and informed to the university to ensure his personal well-being. The court also appreciated the college and the faculty for showing extraordinary empathy on the student Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan Legal Aid counsel Counsel for Respondent: Mr. S. Siva Shanmugam Standing Counsel Case Title: Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 39 Case No: W.P.No.41497 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Student With Benchmark Disability Entitled To Fee Waiver Despite Not Being Admitted Under PwD Quota: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Student With Benchmark Disability Entitled To Fee Waiver Despite Not Being Admitted Under PwD Quota: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers