During the proceedings, the court inquired whether the university had internally deliberated on the necessity of such a reservation in principle.

the bench questioned Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, who was representing the university.In response, Raghavan clarified that the executive council of the university was actively reviewing the matter.

“This issue is under consideration by the executive council. We are not against anybody. We recognize the social concerns involved. However, the key question is whether a court can direct such a reservation, especially when Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution require a policy-based approach. The Supreme Court has stated that reservations are not an inherent right but require a deep and conscious deliberation,” he argued.

Read Also:- X Corp Challenges Sahyog Portal: Karnataka High Court Hears Arguments on IT Act Provisions

Additionally, Raghavan pointed out that the application for a fee waiver had also not been granted.

“If the court cannot grant a final relief of reservation, how can it allow an interim measure to be adopted?” he questioned.

Petitioner’s Stand: Compliance with NALSA Judgment

The petitioner, appearing in person, contested the university’s stance, arguing that NLSIU had failed to interpret the Supreme Court’s NALSA judgment correctly.

“I have always maintained that the single judge’s order is in line with the NALSA judgment and the rights of transgender persons. The concerns raised in the MR Balaji case were already addressed in the NALSA judgment. The reason for the non-recognition of transgender persons' identity has been legally clarified,” the petitioner asserted.

When the court sought further clarification on whether the NALSA judgment prescribed a specific percentage for reservation, the petitioner reiterated that the 0.5% reservation was an interim measure mandated by the single judge until NLSIU formulates a permanent policy in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

NLSIU has neither provided a concrete timeline nor taken substantial steps towards implementing the required reservation policy. Yet, they continue to accept admission applications from transgender candidates,

The university, on the other hand, contended that a candidate’s placement in a category did not automatically guarantee reservation.

Does a person have a legal right to reservation, or is it a matter of policy? That is the crucial issue here,”Raghavan stated.

The petitioner countered this argument by highlighting that failing to classify transgender applicants correctly amounted to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

“Once I have applied and undergone the admission process, I must be classified according to my rightful category. NLSIU has continued to accept applications without making the necessary policy adjustments. This failure violates Article 14,” “I sought financial aid and disclosed personal details as part of the process. NLSIU held my application for a month before ultimately informing me that all students must pay the fees,”

Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Halts Bike Taxi Operations Pending Regulations

Further, the petitioner stated that the delay in implementing the policy was unjustifiable, pointing out that the case was filed in 2023 and that a fresh admission cycle had commenced in 2024 without any changes.

Financial Aid and Its Implications

The petitioner also raised concerns regarding financial aid, stating that after seeking interim relief, they were advised to take student loans instead of being granted financial assistance.

The court then sought clarity on whether financial aid was specifically linked to transgender persons or applied broadly across categories.

The petitioner responded emphatically, stating that transgender persons had only gained formal recognition in 2014 and that financial assistance was crucial to ensuring their access to education.

After hearing both sides, the court scheduled the next hearing for April 29, emphasizing that it would examine the NALSA judgment thoroughly.

In the earlier ruling, the single judge had categorically stated:

“NLSIU is directed to implement the Supreme Court’s directions in the NALSA case by formulating a reservation policy and ensuring financial aid measures for transgender students before the commencement of the next academic year. Until then, the university shall provide a 0.5% interim reservation with a fee waiver, for which it may seek appropriate funding from the State or Central Government.”

Read Also:- Karnataka High Court: Inflating Contract Figures and Challenging Tax Authorities Amounts to Defrauding State

Additionally, the judge clarified that this interim reservation was a necessity due to the university’s failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s directions. Furthermore, admissions granted under this provision would not be considered excess seats, ensuring that transgender students are not unfairly excluded in the ongoing academic year.

Case Title: National Law School of India University v. Mugil Anbu Vasantha & Others
Case No: WA 96/2025