Madras High Court Directs Tamil Nadu To Decide On Horizontal Reservation For Transgender & Intersex Persons

The case originally stemmed from a petition filed by a lesbian couple seeking protection from threats by family members, and over time, evolved into a broader proceeding to enhance the rights and welfare of gender and sexual minorities in the State.

A Bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed, “It is not clear as to whether the Government wants to provide horizontal reservation to the transgender and intersex persons which has always been the request made by the community and which has been reflected in many of the earlier orders passed by the various Courts including the judgment of this Court in Rakshika Raj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors reported in 2024 3 MLJ 684, taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in NALSA v Union of India reported in (2014) 5 SCC 438. Hence, the State Government is directed to take a decision in this regard so that the transgender and intersex persons need not knock the doors of this Court every time and seek for reservation in public employment and educational institutions.”

Advocate Vadhana Bhaskar appeared for the petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor R.Muniyapparaj appeared for the Respondent.

The Court added, “At the outset, this Court has to commend and appreciate the Government of Tamil Nadu for implementing the policy for transgender persons which was made effective from 31.07.2025. Such policy has been brought out by six States and Tamil Nadu is the seventh State which has brought out the policy for transgender and intersex persons. Hence, this Court wants to place on record its appreciation to the Government of Tamil Nadu for coming up with the policy.”

However, the Court expressed concern that the policy does not clearly state whether horizontal reservation a long-standing demand of the transgender and intersex communities would be granted under its provisions. The Court identified one urgent concern the lack of mechanisms to monitor the policy’s implementation.

In this context, the Bench directed, "The State Government must ensure that there is representation of atleast one transwomen, transmen, and intersex person in the Committee for its effective functioning. Necessary notification should be issued by appointing the Committees so that the implementation of the policy can be done in an effective manner.”

The Court also called upon the State authorities to issue directions to Registrars to facilitate marriage registration for couples involving transgender or intersex persons. He pointed out that although the Supreme Court has recognized such marriages, practical barriers continue to hinder registration, and those affected are often left without legal recourse.

Further, the Court urged the State government to consider renaming the new policy to explicitly reflect that it applies to both transgender and intersex persons, to ensure inclusivity and clarity. The Court suggested, "Now that the State Government has come out with a policy for transgender and intersex persons, it is time that the Government comes up with the policy for LGBQA+ persons also. This process should be expedited."

In response, Additional Public Prosecutor informed the Court that a policy for the LGBQA+ community is already under development and is currently in the final stages of drafting.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 15.

Cause Title: S.Sushma & Anr. v. Director General of Police

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Vadhana Bhaskar, S Manuraj

Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor R.Muniyapparaj, Senior Advocates Sriram Panchu, G.Sankaran, Senior Panel Counsel V.Chandrasekaran, Advocates R.Ramasamy, K.Chandrasekar, Subharanjani, R.Thirunavukarasu, B.S.Ajeetha, B.Rabu Manohar, U.Baranidharan, Jayna Kothari, Rajagopalan

Click here to read/download Order