Karnataka High Court Directs KSLU To Reserve Seats And Cut-Off By 2% For Transgender Applicants

In a significant move towards inclusive legal education, the High Court of Karnataka on Monday directed the Karnataka State Law University (KSLU) to expressly provide reservation for transgender persons in its forthcoming admission notification for the three‑year LL.B. course. A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T further ordered that the eligibility cut‑off marks for transgender applicants be reduced by at least 2%, or to the lowest existing category cut‑off, whichever is more beneficial to the candidate.

A Landmark Step Backed by the NALSA Mandate

The court’s direction flows directly from the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014), which, at paragraph 135.3, categorically mandated reservation for transgender persons in admissions to educational institutions. The bench noted that “the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court … contains a clear direction … for providing reservation in admissions to educational institutions” and that this obligation had to be reflected in the university’s notification without further delay.

The Dispute and Earlier Proceedings

The case, styled W.A. 96/2025, was taken up by the High Court on a writ appeal with the National Law School of India University as petitioner and transgender law aspirant Mugil Anbu Vasantha as the first respondent, appearing in person. The petitioner-in-person had consistently sought enforcement of the Supreme Court’s NALSA directives, including a specific memo dated 7 July 2026 raising ten detailed points for ensuring admission and a uniform policy for transgender candidates across educational institutions in Karnataka.

During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General informed the court that the Kerala State Women Development Corporation , functioning under the Women and Child Welfare Department of Karnataka, had already collected survey data and was ready to submit a proposal for reservation for transgender persons in education. The State Government undertook to consider these recommendations along with the 1% horizontal reservation already provided in employment, and to frame common policy norms for all departments, universities and educational institutions.

KSLU’s Notification and the Constituent College’s Rushed Notice

KSLU’s counsel apprised the bench that the admission notification for the three‑year LL.B. course would be issued within seven to ten days. The university had already intimated affiliated colleges identified by the petitioner-in-person to reserve a seat for the first respondent. However, on 17 July 2026, B.M.S. College of Law sent an email to the candidate insisting on production of a migration certificate, percentage conversion certificate, transfer certificate and undergraduate transcript by 20 July 2026, and warning that the application would be withdrawn if the documents were not submitted.

The court firmly observed that since the university’s notification had not yet been issued, a constituent college could not unilaterally withdraw an application made pursuant to the court’s earlier orders, and described the college’s notice as “not sustainable.”

The Court’s Directions

Relying squarely on NALSA , the bench ordered:

  • KSLU shall incorporate a provision for reservation for transgender persons in its forthcoming admission notification.
  • The eligibility criteria for transgender applicants shall be reduced by at least 2% or to the lowest existing category cut‑off, whichever is more favourable to the applicant.
  • A copy of the order be communicated to KSLU, the State Government and the first respondent the same day.
  • The State Government shall consider the ten‑point memo while formulating common policy norms, and the Women Development Corporation shall also factor in those aspects.

The bench also issued notice to certain impleading applicants and listed the matter for further hearing on 3 August 2026.

What the Verdict Means

This order marks a critical enforcement of the decade‑old NALSA mandate in the domain of professional education. By fixing a quantifiable cut‑off reduction, the court has created an immediate, enforceable mechanism that can be replicated by other universities. The direction also underscores that a mere policy intention is insufficient – the constitutional promise of equality must be translated into concrete admission criteria. For the first time in Karnataka, a transgender law aspirant will enter the LL.B. programme not as a beneficiary of executive discretion but as a holder of a judicially guaranteed right to inclusive education.