“Today It’s Transgender, Tomorrow Another Category”| Acting CJ Recuses, Case Shifted To New Bench
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Today, On 26th June, NLSIU has challenged the Karnataka HC order granting 0.5% reservation for transgender persons, questioning the legal basis. “Today it’s transgender, tomorrow another category, how is this gonna work?” argued its counsel. Acting CJ recused; case reassigned.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court heard an appeal filed by the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, against a single judge’s order which had directed the university to provide 0.5% reservation for transgender individuals in course admissions.
Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice, V. Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi.
Senior Advocate K G Raghavan represented the university in this case.
Also Read: [NLSIU 25% Domicile Reservation] Karnataka Gov. Withdraws Appeal Before Supreme Court
He began by pointing out that the challenged order, dated 16 December 2024, had dealt with two separate matters. The first was about granting approval, and the second was about mandating a reservation.
There was also an issue regarding fee concessions. The university is contesting all these points.
The court was informed that on 16 January 2023, NLSIU had issued an official notification for admissions to its 3-year LLB programme, with classes scheduled to begin in July. As per this notification, a total of 120 seats were available, and the reservation criteria had been clearly mentioned.
The university maintains that the petitioner’s admission issue should be seen within the scope of this notification.
During the hearing, the counsel clarified,
“It is not a horizontal reservation but rather a vertical one. After four categories they have come up with a fifth category.”
He questioned the basis of the 0.5% reservation by asking,
“From where does the 0.5% number comes from? Why not 0.1%?”
He continued to argue that,
“Was any reservation ever claimed under a specific category? At no stage did the petitioner assert that they belonged to a fifth category.”
The counsel did acknowledge the gender identity of the petitioner but pointed out that the petitioner had not claimed any reservation on that ground.
He expressed concern by saying,
“Today its transgender tomorrow they will come with some other category? How is this gonna work?”
He also questioned the powers of the court under constitutional provisions by asking,
“Can the High Court under power of Article 226 issue such directions and wouldn’t this amount to interfering in matters of policy.”
In response, the judge asked,
“You have not denied admission in general category?”
To this, the counsel responded,
“Exactly, Milord. We are not denying the petitioner admission. The petitioner appeared for CLAT but was not offered a seat due to not meeting the required percentile. This was what was challenged before the learned single judge. The petitioner did not fall under any recognized reservation category.”
The counsel also shared that there was no objection if the petitioner had availed the financial help.
“If the petitioner would have accepted the financial aid and taken admission I would not have mind. But that did not happen.”
He further added,
“The petitioner wanted help to secure a loan which we did and gave name of the banks but the petitioner failed to pay the fees.”
Highlighting the timeline issue, the counsel stated,
“We informed the learned single judge that the academic year was nearing its end and questioned how the petitioner could still seek admission at this stage. However, the learned judge stated that the University could step aside, as the broader issue of reservation needed to be addressed.”
He further argued about the scope of the case and said,
“If you are making a private interest litigation to a public interest litigation do so but appropriately.”
He criticised the final verdict by stating,
“The final order was completely contrary to what the proceedings were about. How can general directions be issued in a private litigation.”
Touching upon the social angle, the counsel remarked,
“We are not a very forward thinking society as the west. We understand the problems this class of people has in society. Change should be brought by modifying the system in accordance with law and not by derailing it.”
Also Read: NLU Jodhpur Bus Accident in Rajasthan: “3 Students Tragically Lost Their Lives”
He raised a serious legal concern by stating,
“Discipline of this court do not give Ld. single judge the power to make litigation of private nature to convert into a public interest litigation and give such directions.”
At the end of the session, Acting Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao noted that since members of the university’s governing council are known to him, he may not be the right person to hear this matter. He said the case would be relisted tomorrow before a different bench, where he will not be part of the hearing.
Case Title: NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY V MUGIL ANBU VASANTHA AND OTHERS, WA 96/2025
