Madras HC Allows Law Student with Schizophrenia to Write Exams Amid Fee Dispute

In an interim order prioritizing a student's right to education, the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to permit a student with chronic schizophrenia to sit for his semester examinations, despite an ongoing dispute over fee payment and his disability status.

CHENNAI – The Madras High Court, in a significant interim measure, has intervened in a dispute between a law student diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia and the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University. Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the university to allow the student to write his semester exams, which were scheduled to commence on November 3, 2025, safeguarding his academic year while the court adjudicates the larger issues at stake.

The case, Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others , brings to the forefront the complex interplay between university administrative rules, the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and the statutory protections afforded under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The Court's Interim Direction

Justice Anand Venkatesh, while granting the student permission to appear for his exams, made it clear that this was a provisional arrangement. The court meticulously balanced the immediate needs of the student against the university's unresolved claims.

“For the present, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to write the examinations commencing from 03.11.2025,” the order stated. “It is made clear that this interim direction will not enure any right on the petitioner to seek for the reliefs that have been sought for in the writ petition.”

To ensure the final outcome of the writ petition is not prejudiced, the court further instructed the university to keep the student's answer papers in a sealed cover until further orders are passed. This directive ensures that the student does not lose an academic term while allowing the legal arguments to be fully heard and decided on their merits.

Background of the Dispute: A Tale of Shifting Goalposts

The petitioner, a student pursuing a three-year LLB (Hons) degree, had his academic journey complicated by procedural hurdles related to his disability status. The root of the conflict lies in the university's 2024 prospectus, which explicitly stated that differently-abled candidates would be exempt from tuition and special fees upon submission of a valid certificate from a competent authority.

Relying on this promise, the student applied under the "Special reservation Category for Autism and mental illness." However, at the time of admission, he could only produce a discharge summary from Kovai Medical Hospital. The university did not accept this document as a valid disability certificate and consequently allotted him a seat under the "Backward Class (Others)" category.

Crucially, the student argued that the allotment letter itself reiterated the fee exemption policy for differently-abled students. This, his counsel contended, created a "legitimate expectation" that he would be granted the fee waiver once he produced the required documentation.

Escalation and Rejection

Following admission, the student made concerted efforts to rectify his status. He approached the Chairman of Law Admissions, who reportedly granted him time to produce a valid disability certificate. Subsequently, he obtained a certificate from the Government Kilpauk Medical College, which assessed his permanent disability at 10%. The university, however, rejected this certificate as well.

It was only at a later stage, the petitioner submitted, that the university informed him of a specific eligibility criterion: only candidates with a disability of 40% or more were eligible for the fee exemption.

The student's health took a turn for the worse in March 2025 when he suffered another schizophrenic episode, necessitating continuous psychiatric care. Following this, his disability level was reassessed and certified at 40%. Armed with this new certificate, he submitted another representation to the university, believing the matter was under active consideration while he continued to attend classes.

The university ultimately rejected this representation and, citing non-payment of fees, informed the student that he would be barred from writing his semester examinations.

Arguments Before the Court

Senior Counsel Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, representing the petitioner, launched a multi-pronged attack on the university's actions. He argued that the rejection was "arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law." The conduct of the university, he asserted, infringed upon the student's fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Right to Freedom), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty, which includes the right to education).

Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the university's stance violated the principles enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and defeated the doctrine of legitimate expectation created by its own prospectus and communications.

In response, Mr. S. Sivashanmugam, Standing Counsel for the university, presented a procedural defense. He argued that since the student was not admitted under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category, the question of a fee exemption did not arise. The university also pointed out that the student had filed a similar plea against a previous rejection, which had been dismissed by the court. They emphasized that the new 40% disability certificate was obtained only after that earlier court order.

Legal and Systemic Implications

This case serves as a critical reminder of the challenges students with disabilities, particularly those with fluctuating or non-visible conditions like schizophrenia, face within rigid educational systems. The university's insistence on a 40% disability threshold at the point of admission raises questions about reasonable accommodation and the institution's duty of care.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is central to the petitioner's claim. When an authority's promise or established practice leads an individual to believe they will receive a certain benefit, the courts may intervene if that expectation is defeated without a rational justification. Here, the university's own prospectus created the expectation that fee waivers were available, and its subsequent actions will be scrutinized for fairness and consistency.

Moreover, the case highlights the spirit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which aims to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, a life with dignity, and respect for their integrity. Barring a student from an examination due to a fee dispute directly linked to the recognition of his disability status could be seen as undermining these core statutory objectives.

While the court’s interim order is a temporary reprieve, it signals a judicial inclination towards protecting a student's educational future from irreparable harm. The final decision in this writ petition could have significant implications for how universities in Tamil Nadu and across the country assess and accommodate students with disabilities, particularly in cases where medical conditions and their certified severity evolve over time.