Madras High Court ruled that a student who attains benchmark disability of 40 percent during the course of study is entitled to tuition fee waiver, notwithstanding the fact that the student was not admitted under the PwD quota at the time of admission.

The Madras High Court ruled that a student who attains benchmark disability of 40 percent during the course of study is entitled to tuition fee waiver, notwithstanding the fact that the student was not admitted under the PwD quota at the time of admission.

The petitioner was admitted to the 3 Year LL.B. (Hons.) programme at the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University under the Backward Class category, his disability then being assessed at 10 percent. During the subsistence of the course, his disability progressed and was subsequently certified at 40 percent by the competent authority. Due to severe financial constraints, the petitioner defaulted in payment of the second year fee and was restrained from appearing for examinations, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

The Court observed that although the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates free education only up to the school level and provides reservation in higher education, the State of Tamil Nadu and the University have consciously extended fee waiver as a welfare measure, reflected in the prospectus. The Court rejected a rigid or technical linkage between reservation and fee waiver, holding that welfare benefits cannot be curtailed merely because the PwD quota stands exhausted. Relying on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the principle that disability benefits are enforceable rights rather than concessions, the Court emphasized that equal opportunity in education necessarily includes supportive welfare measures.

The Court directed waiver of tuition fees for the second year and all subsequent years so long as the petitioner continues to satisfy the benchmark disability requirement, recognition of attendance, declaration of results, and uninterrupted continuation of studies, subject to ongoing medical supervision.
The Court placed on record its appreciation of the empathetic approach adopted by the institution and commended the assistance rendered by the legal aid counsel.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan, Legal Aid Counsel
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S. Siva Shanmugam, Standing Counsel

Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others
W.P. No. 41497 of 2025, order dated 08.01.2026