Persons With Disabilities Require Both Reservation & Welfare Measures: Madras High Court Holds Law Student With 40% Disability Eligible For Fee Waiver

The Madras High Court was considering a petition seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend regular classes and pursue/complete the 3-Year LL.B.(Hons.) Degree Course without interruption, by exempting the petitioner from payment of tuition fee and special fee, based upon the 40% Disability Certificate issued in his favour.

The Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held, “The only constraint faced by the College is that the 5% quota earmarked for persons with disabilities has already been filled, and the fee waiver has been pre-approved, only in respect of those candidates When the intention of the State of Tamil Nadu as well as the 2nd respondent is to provide fee waiver to persons with diabilities, its implementation same cannot be approached pedantically by clubbing it with reservation. Persons with disabilities require both reservation and welfare measures so as to provide them with equal opportunities to complete their education along with other candidates.”

“It is declared that the petitioner is eligible for the waiver of fees as provided in the Prospectus of the 2nd respondent institution and accordingly, 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”, it added.

Legal Aid counsel Rajagopal Vasudevan represented the Petitioner while Standing Counsel S.Siva Shanmugam represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, a differently abled person suffering from a specific intellectual disability/ mental illness, was selected to undergo the 3-year LL.B. (Hons.) Degree Course in the respondent institution. At the time of admission, the petitioner was admitted only under the Backwards Class quota, as his disability did not cross the benchmark of 40%, as he was certified to be disabled to an extent of 10%. Subsequently, when he was undergoing the course, his percentage of disability increased, and it was assessed as 40%. It was stated that the petitioner belongs to a poor agricultural family. Though he joined the course and paid the first-year fee, he did not pay the fee for the second year, due to which the University informed him that he could attend the classes only after payment of the fee. The petitioner did not do so and continued to attend the classes.

When he was not permitted to write the examination, the petitioner approached the Court. By an interim order, the petitioner was permitted to write the examination. The petitioner filed a petition, which was dismissed, holding that he could not avail the benefit, since he had not crossed the benchmark disability of 40%. The petitioner once again approached the Court, considering that a Disability Certificate was issued certifying his disability at 40%. It was the petitioner’s case that, as per the Prospectus, it was the policy of the respondent institution to waive the tuition fee in respect of differently-abled candidates.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides for free education under Section 31 only up to the school level and, insofar as higher education is concerned, under Section 32, only reservation is made mandatory.

“However, with its social consciousness and the welfare orientation, the Government of Tamil Nadu and consequently, the 2nd respondent institution have also extended the other welfare measures, such as, fee waiver for persons with disabilities”, it added.

The Bench further noticed that the petitioner is undergoing treatment at the Government Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital and asked the concerned Psychiatrist / Doctor to periodically ensure the well-being of the petitioner. “The concerned Psychiatrist / Doctor who is giving treatment to the petitioner shall at all times needed, coordinate with the 2nd respondent to update about the petitioner’s wellness and if any special requirement that may be needed for the petitioner, ensuring his well-being and the academic environment of the college”, it ordered.

The Bench thus held the petitioner eligible for the waiver of fees as provided in the Prospectus of the respondent institution.

Cause Title: Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar (Case No.: W.P.No.41497 of 2025)

Click here to read/download Order

.