High Courts in Focus: Kerala Mandates BCI on Transgender Law Seats, Madras Upholds Corporate Veil in Film Dispute

In a week of significant judicial pronouncements, High Courts across India have delivered critical orders touching upon fundamental rights, corporate accountability, and freedom of expression. The Kerala High Court issued a stern directive to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to expedite the inclusion of transgender students in legal education, while the Madras High Court delved into the complexities of corporate law in a high-stakes film industry dispute. Concurrently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court offered clarity on obscenity laws in the context of media advertising. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of these key rulings and their implications for the legal landscape.

---

Kerala High Court Champions Transgender Inclusion in Legal Education

In a decisive move to advance LGBTQIA+ rights, the Kerala High Court has issued a significant interim order directing the Bar Council of India to approve the creation of two supernumerary seats for transgender students in all law colleges across the state. The directive, aimed at preventing administrative delays from stalling a crucial measure for social justice, underscores the judiciary's role as a proactive guardian of constitutional values.

An Interim Mandate to the BCI

The order was passed on October 24 by Justice VG Arun in the case of Esai Clara v State of Kerala & Ors , a petition filed by a transgender individual seeking reservation and a separate rank list for transgender candidates in law college admissions. The Court's intervention came after it was informed that the BCI's decision-making process was mired in procedural delays.

The BCI's standing counsel submitted that the Kerala government's request from August 6 to create the additional seats had been referred to its Standing Committee for Legal Education. However, the committee concluded that final approval rested with the BCI's General Council. Crucially, the counsel admitted that a meeting of the General Council was not scheduled for the near future and its timing depended on the "convenience of its members."

Finding this indefinite delay unacceptable, Justice Arun asserted the urgency of the matter. In a sharply worded direction, the Court refused to let the issue languish pending the BCI's internal scheduling.

"It is further submitted that it's not possible to submit as to when the general council of the council will meet next. In my opinion, the issue cannot wait endlessly for the General Council of the Bar Council to meet," Justice Arun observed in the order.

The Court consequently issued a clear interim direction: "...there shall be an interim direction to the Bar Council of India to grant approval to the request made by the Government of Kerala vide communication dated 06.08.2025 for creation of two additional seats for transgenders students in all Law Colleges across the State within 10 days of receipt of a copy of this order."

Legal and Social Implications

This order is a landmark development in the fight for transgender rights in India, particularly within the sphere of professional education. It builds upon the foundational principles laid down by the Supreme Court in NALSA v. Union of India (2014) , which recognized transgender persons as a 'third gender' and affirmed their fundamental rights under the Constitution.

The Kerala High Court’s directive is legally significant for several reasons: 1. Judicial Proactivism: It demonstrates the Court’s willingness to issue a writ of mandamus to a national regulatory body like the BCI to enforce state policy aimed at furthering constitutional rights, rather than accepting procedural delays as a valid reason for inaction. 2. Affirmative Action: The creation of supernumerary seats is a direct form of affirmative action. It ensures that the inclusion of transgender students does not come at the expense of existing seats for other categories, thereby smoothing the path for implementation. 3. Setting a National Precedent: This order could inspire similar petitions and state government initiatives across the country, potentially compelling the BCI to formulate a uniform national policy for transgender inclusion in legal education.

For the legal profession, this is a step towards fostering greater diversity and representation. By ensuring access to legal education for marginalized communities, the judiciary is helping to build a more inclusive and empathetic generation of lawyers and judges. The case is scheduled for its next hearing on November 6, where the BCI's compliance with the order will be scrutinized.

---

Madras High Court Rejects Plea to Pierce Corporate Veil in 'Akhanda 2' Dispute

In the commercial and corporate law arena, the Madras High Court declined to grant an interim injunction that would have halted the release of the much-anticipated Telugu film, Akhanda 2 . The Court's decision in Eros International Media Limited vs. 14 Reels Entertainment provides valuable insights into the high threshold required for a court to "lift the corporate veil" and treat separate legal entities as one.

The Allegations: Alter Ego and Evasion

Eros International moved the Court seeking to restrain the producers from releasing or exploiting the film pending the payment of over ₹27.7 crore due under a 2019 arbitral award against 14 Reels Entertainment Pvt Ltd. The core of Eros's argument was that the award debtor had fraudulently created a new entity, 14 Reels Plus LLP , to circumvent its financial liabilities.

Eros contended that the LLP, incorporated in 2017 while arbitration was pending, was a "mere continuation and alter ego" of the private limited company. It presented evidence to support this claim, arguing that both entities: * Were controlled by the same promoters: Anil Sunkara, Gopi Chand Achanta, and Rama Brahmam Achanta. * Operated under the same “14 Reels” house mark and used near-identical logos. * Featured films originally produced by the company on the LLP’s website and promotional materials.

Eros urged Justice Anand Venkatesh to pierce the corporate veil, treat both entities as a single economic unit, and prevent the release of Akhanda 2 until the award amount was secured. It highlighted that the 2021 prequel, Akhanda , had grossed over ₹130 crore, and allowing the sequel's release under a different banner would irreparably frustrate the execution of the award.

The Court's Refusal

Despite these compelling arguments, the Madras High Court refused to grant the interim injunctions sought. While the detailed order is awaited, the refusal signifies the judiciary's traditional reluctance to disregard the principle of a company's separate legal personality, a cornerstone of corporate law established in Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd .

Lifting the corporate veil is an exception, not the rule. Courts typically exercise this power only in cases of clear fraud or where the corporate form is being used to evade legal obligations in a manner that is manifestly unjust. The Court's decision suggests that, at the interim stage, Eros had not presented sufficient evidence to meet this high standard and convince the court that the two entities were indistinguishable for the purpose of executing the arbitral award.

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for award holders that enforcing a decree against a debtor who may be restructuring their business requires robust and incontrovertible evidence of fraudulent intent. Allegations of common promoters and branding, while persuasive, may not be sufficient on their own to convince a court to disregard established principles of corporate separateness.

---

MP High Court on Obscenity: Blurred Image in Ad Does Not Corrupt Minds

Rounding out the week's key decisions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a complaint alleging that the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper had published an obscene photograph in a 2012 movie advertisement. The ruling provides a pragmatic application of obscenity laws under the Indian Penal Code and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

In Nagendra Singh Gaharwar Vs. Manmohan Agrawal , a lawyer had filed a private complaint against the newspaper over an ad for the 2012 film 'Players', which featured a woman's partially clad image. The complaint was dismissed by both the trial court and the revisional court, prompting the appeal to the High Court.

Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal meticulously examined the evidence and concluded that the image did not meet the legal test for obscenity. The Court noted that crucial parts of the actor's body were deliberately obscured.

"Though the body of lady shown in the advertisement does not have any cloths but breast and genitals part are sufficiently blurred. Some words are also written in bold letters on genitals part of the lady," the judgment stated.

The Court held that the advertisement was not designed to "excite sexual passions" and had no "tendency to deprave or corrupt the minds of people." Finding no illegality in the lower courts' decisions, Justice Paliwal dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the principle that for an image to be legally obscene, it must have a clear and potent tendency to corrupt, a standard the blurred advertisement failed to meet.