Student With Benchmark Disability Entitled To Fee Waiver Even Without PwD Quota Admission: Madras High Court
Isabella Mariam
The Madras High Court Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy disposed a writ petition by a law student with a mental illness/disability, directing the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to waive his tuition and special fees for the second year and subsequent years, so long as he continues to fall within the 40% benchmark disability. Noting that the Tamil Nadu Government and the university had introduced a welfare scheme for persons with disabilities but were extending it only to students admitted under the 5% disability quota, the court held the fee-waiver benefit could not be implemented by mechanically linking it to reservation. The court also treated the student as having sufficient attendance and directed declaration of his results, alongside periodic medical follow-up and coordination with the institution.
The writ petition was filed by a law student enrolled in a three-year LL.B. (Hons.) course at a state law university, challenging a communication issued by the university authorities restricting his participation in academic activities due to non-payment of fees. The petitioner, a person with intellectual disability/mental illness, was admitted under the Backward Class quota as his disability was initially assessed at 10%, below the benchmark of 40%. During the course of study, his disability was reassessed and certified at 40%.
The petitioner paid the first-year fee but did not remit the fee for the second year. The university informed him that attendance and continuation in classes would be permitted only upon payment of the prescribed fee. Despite this, the petitioner continued attending classes. He was later prevented from writing examinations, prompting him to approach the Court. An interim order permitted him to write the examination.
The petitioner relied on the university prospectus providing fee waiver for persons with disabilities and cited judicial precedents in support of extending such benefit. The respondents contended that fee waiver was restricted to candidates admitted under the disability quota and that the quota stood exhausted. Reference was made to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly provisions relating to reservation in higher education.
The Court noted that “the petitioner was selected to undergo the 3-year LL.B. (Hons.) Degree Course” and that he was “a differently abled person suffering specific intellectual disability/mental illness.” It recorded that at the time of admission, “his disability did not cross the benchmark of 40%” and was later reassessed at the benchmark level.
The Court observed that under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, “free education is provided under Section 31 only up to the school level” and that for higher education “only reservation is made mandatory.” However, it noted that the State and the institution had extended welfare measures such as fee waiver.
The Court stated that “the intention of the State of Tamil Nadu as well as the 2nd respondent is to provide fee waiver to persons with disabilities,” and that such implementation “cannot be approached pedantically by clubbing it with reservation.” It recorded that persons with disabilities “require both reservation and welfare measures so as to provide them with equal opportunities to complete their education.”
Relying on precedent, the Court noted that benefits extended to persons with disabilities “are not any privileges but are rights” and that such measures “would fall within the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court further observed that “every effort should be made to ensure that the petitioner completes his education” and that opportunities must be provided so that he “may lead a normal life like any other person.” The Court also took note of the petitioner’s ongoing medical treatment and the need for coordination between medical authorities and the institution to ensure his well-being.
The Court “declared that the petitioner is eligible for the waiver of fees as provided in the Prospectus of the 2nd respondent institution” and ordered that “the fee payable by the petitioner for the II-year and the ensuing years, so long as the petitioner continues to be within the benchmark disability of 40% shall stand waived.”
Since “the attendance was not marked as the petitioner had not paid the fee and, therefore, not treated as being on the rolls of the institution,” and taking note that “the petitioner was present in the institution and attended the classes at his will,” it was “declared that the petitioner has sufficient attendance,” having regard to “the extraordinary circumstances of the case.”
“The results of the petitioner shall be declared,” and further ordered that “for the ensuing semester, the petitioner shall regularly attend the classes. The petitioner shall periodically report before the Government Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital which is treating him and ensure his personal well being,” and “the concerned Psychiatrist / Doctor will be entitled to coordinate with the Dean of the 2nd respondent institution to issue any specific directions or make any observations, requirements etc.”
“It is open for the Psychiatrist / Doctor to give such advice to the institution and the institution shall abide by the same,” and correspondingly “it is also open for the Dean to give inputs and to seek for advice. The petitioner shall at all times abide by the medical advice of the appropriate authority.”
The action of the College and the faculty in showing extraordinary empathy on the student is appreciated,” and “the appreciable service of the learned legal-aid-counsel” was acknowledged.
“There shall be no order as to costs,” and “the connected miscellaneous petition is closed,” and “Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Dean, the Government Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Kilpauk, Chennai.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan, Legal Aid Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Siva Shanmugam, Standing Counsel
Case Title: Gokula Krishnan B v The Registrar & Others
Case Number: W.P.No.41497 of 2025
Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
