Supreme Court Pushes for Systemic Transgender Reservation, Resists Ad-Hoc Relief in NEET-PG Plea

NEW DELHI, OCT 06, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India on Friday signalled a firm preference for a comprehensive, nationwide policy on transgender reservation over piecemeal interim orders, as it heard a significant writ petition filed by two transgender doctors seeking horizontal reservation in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Postgraduate (NEET-PG) admissions. While expressing deep concern over the decade-long delay in implementing its landmark NALSA v. Union of India (2014) judgment, a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar refrained from granting immediate relief to the individual petitioners, instead focusing on compelling the Union and State governments to formulate a structured policy.

The Court directed all States and Union Territories yet to file affidavits to do so, explicitly indicating a timeline for the implementation of horizontal reservation for transgender persons in educational institutions. This directive places the onus squarely on executive bodies to act on the principles laid down in the NALSA verdict, which recognized transgender persons as a "socially and educationally backward class" entitled to reservation benefits.

The case, Kiran A.R. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , has brought the simmering issue of transgender inclusion in higher education and public employment back into the judicial spotlight. The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, have challenged the NEET-PG notification for its failure to provide a specific counselling pathway for transgender candidates, effectively rendering their participation uncertain.

The Plea for Interim Relief vs. The Court's Holistic Approach

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising made a fervent plea for an interim order, arguing that the NEET-PG counselling process was imminent. She sought the provisional reservation of two seats under the All India quota and one seat each in the Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh state quotas—the petitioners' respective home states. Jaising contended that without such a directive, the two qualified doctors would be irreparably prejudiced and lose a crucial academic year in their pursuit of specialized medical education.

However, the bench was troubled by the prospect of granting individual-specific relief. Justice Narasimha articulated the Court's dilemma, emphasizing that a broader, more equitable framework was necessary. He observed that a court-mandated reservation for only two individuals could sideline other meritorious transgender candidates who had not approached the judiciary.

"The question we are asking is that, how to take a holistic view in providing the reservation for transgender and what you are addressing is that, forget about all this we have two clients, you make provisions for two of them," Justice Narasimha stated, cautioning against allowing the case to be "driven by individuals who have come before us."

The bench stressed that the core issue was the systemic implementation of the NALSA judgment, which requires a policy decision on the quantum of reservation and its application across all states. Justice Narasimha remarked, "We will be driven by implementing NALSA across the board for everybody. Two individuals will completely divert the whole thing."

Parallel Proceedings and the Union's Contentious Stand

The proceedings were further complicated by the existence of a parallel contempt petition ( Mx Kamlesh & Ors. v. Niten Chandra ) pending before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India, which deals with the broader non-implementation of the NALSA judgment. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave, representing the Union, highlighted this, prompting the bench to initially consider transferring the matter to avoid conflicting orders. While the bench ultimately proceeded with the hearing, it directed the ASG to clarify the precise scope of the contempt plea.

Most revealing was the Union government's official stance, as articulated by the ASG. When questioned by the bench, she stated that the Centre's position is that a separate horizontal quota for transgender persons is unnecessary.

"The Union has taken a stand that transgender person can avail a reservation granted to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, or Economically Weaker Sections and no separate reservation can be provided," ASG Dave informed the court.

This position appears to be in direct conflict with the spirit of the NALSA judgment, which identified transgender identity as a distinct axis of social and educational backwardness deserving of specific affirmative action. Horizontal reservation cuts across vertical categories (like SC, ST, OBC) to provide specific quotas for disadvantaged groups like women, persons with disabilities, and, as per NALSA , transgender individuals.

The ASG also raised concerns about the "very wide" definition of 'transgender person' under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, suggesting it was under legislative review for a potential amendment. Justice Narasimha promptly countered this, retorting, "Who stopped the legislature from amending if it desires?" In response, Jaising clarified that her clients were not ambiguously defined, as they possess official identity cards issued under the 2019 Act.

The Path Forward: A Call for Concrete Timelines

While declining to pass an immediate interim order, the bench did not close the door on relief for the current academic year. Justice Narasimha suggested an alternative path, stating the Court could direct the All India authorities to decide how they intend to implement transgender reservation on a national basis. He proposed that all states must come before the court and commit to a timeline for implementation.

"We can direct each State to come before us and tell us what time they will implement. It does not matter if it’s done this year but definitely it should be next year," he remarked.

In response, Jaising agreed that a commitment from the authorities within a reasonable period would be acceptable, given that counselling has not yet begun. The Court has now directed the Union and the concerned states to take instructions on the matter and file their responses.

The outcome of this case will be a critical test of the judiciary's power to enforce its own declarations and the executive's willingness to translate constitutional principles into tangible policy. For the legal community, it underscores the persistent challenges in implementing horizontal reservation and the ongoing struggle to ensure that the constitutional promise of equality and non-discrimination extends meaningfully to one of India's most marginalized communities.

The petitioners have specifically prayed for a direction to issue a fresh NEET-PG admission notification providing 1% horizontal reservation for transgender candidates in each vertical category. The matter is expected to be listed again after the governments file their responses.