'Did Anyone Apply Their Mind'? Karnataka HC Asks NLSIU On Reservation For Transgender Persons; 'Executive Council Considering,' Says Varsity

While hearing NLSIU's plea challenging a single judge's order directing it to give 0.5% reservation to transgender persons with fee waiver, the Karnataka High Court on Friday orally asked if the varsity is considering whether it must "in principle" give reservation to transgender candidates in admission to courses.  

The varsity responded by stating that its executive council is looking into the matter, adding that it was not against anybody and the council which comprises of eminent legal luminaries shall take a "reasoned, conscious and an objective decision". Notably in an earlier hearing, the varsity had contended that there cannot be a direction to give fee waiver or give reservation, as it has to be done by the University's executive committee.

A division bench of Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice TM Nadaf was hearing NLSIU's appeal against the single judge's order which had directed the varsity to provide reservation of 0.5% to transgender persons with fee waiver until it implements the 2014 directions of the Supreme Courts in NALSA v. Union of India, by formulating a reservation for transgender candidates.

During the hearing the bench orally asked senior advocate KG Raghavan who appeared for the varsity, "After the single judge's order and pending outcome of this appeal...did anyone (NLSIU) apply their mind whether in principle we must have this kind of reservation?".

To this Raghavan submitted, "I must tell your lordships. This is a matter which is engaging the attention of the (executive) council. This is not a litigation asserting an individual right. We are not against anybody. We understand that this is a social problem. But the point is can a direction be issued by the court and especially where reservation is contemplated under Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Supreme Court says it is not a matter of right it is a matter of deep consideration. I must say that we will look at it. The council will look at it and take a reasoned, conscious and an objective decision on the matter/ The council comprises of eminent legal luminaries and they will look at it".

Meanwhile Raghavan also submitted that even the application seeking fee waiver has not been allowed.

"If you cannot grant final relief of reservation then how can you grant interim measure to be adopted," the senior counsel said. 

Thereafter the petitioner who appeared in person in rejoinder submitted that the varsity had not read the NALSA judgment before taking their stand.

"I have said the order is harmonious reading of the NALSA judgement and others and Transgender person rights. The questions raised in MR Balaji judgment are answered in the NALSA judgment. What is the reason for non-recognition of Transgender persons' identity is also dealt with in NALSA judgment," the petitioner said.  

The bench at this stage said that it will look into the NALSA judgment

The petitioner thereafter argued, "The learned counsel had suggested that I am trying to make this petition as PIL. The source of the 1 percent reservation comes from Karnataka General Recruitment Rules it did not come out from executive order but based on PIL adjudicated by this court". 

The court at this stage asked the context in which the PIL was adjudicated. To this the petitioner said, "Employment. But the modalities remain the same milords". 

The court thereafter said, "The argument made here is that it is obligation of the state and not university". 

To this the petitioner said, "I am not invoking a PIL...modalities was already discussed by this court". The bench thereafter asked if the Supreme Court in the NALSA judgment has said anything about the reservation percentage.

To this the petitioner said that the condition provided in the single judge's order is to provide a reservation of 0.5% to transgender persons until it implements the 2014 directions of the Supreme Courts by formulating a reservation for Transgender persons. 

"They (NLSIU) have not submitted about what and when they are going to do. But still they continue to accept admission applications from TG candidates," the petitioner added.

At this stage Raghavan said, "We had placed the candidate in other category. Does a person have a right for reservation or mandamus that is the question. I submit that it is a matter of policy". 

Meanwhile the petitioner argued, "In the rank list they have showed me as 62nd rank". 

The court orally said that the varsity's argument was in view of NALSA judgment that they had recognized that the petitioner was in the other category but to take it  forward there should be a policy.

To this the petitioner said, "Then it is violation of Article 14. Once I have applied and gone through the procedure, I have to classified according to the category. Even in two years of the petition they have not made submission on the reservation and admission is continued, thus it is violation of Article 14. They have not implemented in the period directed by the single judge order and new admission period has begun". 

The petitioner at this stage however submitted, "My plea was filed in 2023 and they have conducted a new admission in 2024. After interim order I sought  financial aid. In the course of that process I gave details of my life. They returned a decision while maintaining challenge to my admission that I should raise loans. I sought time to raise the money and complete my admission. They held it for a month and returned saying all students have to pay". 

The court at this stage asked, "Is the graph of financial aid connected to Transgender persons or is it dehors?". To this the petitioner said, "Absolutely mylords. I would like to point out that it was only in 2014 that Transgender persons got some recognition". 

After hearing the matter for some time the court listed it for hearing on April 29. 

The single judge in its order had said “NLSIU is directed to implement directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in NALSA's case (NALSA v. Union of India) by formulating reservation along with measures for providing financial aid to TGs in education before commencement of admission process for next academic year. Until then to provide a reservation of 0.5% (half the percentage of reservation provided for TGs in employment under State) as interim reservation with fee waiver and for which NLSIU may apply to the State/Central Government for appropriate grant."

Further the single judge had also clarified that interim reservation is necessitated due to failure of the University to carry out directions issued by the Supreme Court in NALSA's case, admission of Transgender candidates to III year LL.B. Courses in NLSIU in pursuance of this order shall not be treated as excess, even if they are in addition to admissions under current admission process, as the same will be in force only for the current academic year.

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

Case No: WA 96/2025.