Facts of the Case

The writ petition was filed in the backdrop of longstanding demands from the transgender and intersex community for effective policy measures and recognition of their constitutional and human rights. During the pendency of the matter, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued the Tamil Nadu State Policy for Transgender Persons, 2025 marking a significant step in institutionalising rights and welfare provisions for transgender and intersex persons. The Madras High Court took judicial notice of the policy, welcomed the initiative, and considered various suggestions made by stakeholders regarding its content and implementation.

The court heard arguments from multiple parties including senior counsel Mr. Sriram Panchu and Ms. Jayna Kothari, among others, representing different stakeholders and community voices. Comprehensive written submissions had also been presented, highlighting strengths of the policy as well as areas needing further attention. The policy was reviewed in light of constitutional mandates, earlier judicial precedents like NALSA v. Union of India (2014) and Rakshika Raj v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024), and international human rights standards.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioners and the intervening stakeholders welcomed the initiative by the Government of Tamil Nadu but raised several concerns regarding the completeness and clarity of the policy. One key issue was the ambiguity in Clause 3.7, which referred to the “Right to Representation in Employment and Educational Institutions” without clearly stating whether horizontal reservation was being granted to transgender and intersex persons. Petitioners emphasized that this lack of clarity compelled affected individuals to repeatedly seek judicial intervention despite earlier rulings mandating such inclusion.

Additionally, petitioners flagged that the policy focused primarily on transgender and intersex issues, leaving out broader SOGIESC (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics) considerations. They argued that training modules, curriculum revisions, and sensitisation efforts must include the full LGBTQIA+ spectrum to avoid confusion and exclusion. Petitioners also advocated for specific measures like protection from natal family violence, recognition of life partners in medical decision-making, registration of marriages under existing law, and inclusion of community members in monitoring committees.

Contentions of the Respondents

The State Government and its representatives submitted that the Transgender Policy 2025 was a progressive step that covered various critical aspects including healthcare, education, employment, and social inclusion of transgender and intersex persons. The government emphasized that it was the seventh state in India to bring out such a comprehensive policy and assured the court of its commitment to implementing the same effectively.

The Additional Public Prosecutor also informed the court that a separate policy for LGBQA+ persons was currently under process and required more time for finalization. The National Medical Commission, Tamil Nadu Medical Council, and NCERT also sought additional time to submit their status reports and feedback on the proposed policy changes and training modules, as previously directed by the court.

Court’s Observations

The Madras High Court appreciated the efforts of the Tamil Nadu Government in bringing out the policy and recorded its commendation for addressing various rights of transgender and intersex persons. However, the Court made clear that policies of this nature must reflect the lived experiences and needs of the community it aims to serve, not the perceptions of cisgender or heterosexual populations.

The Court pointed out that Clause 3.7, regarding representation in employment and education, lacked clarity on the crucial issue of horizontal reservation. Noting that courts had already ruled on this matter in Rakshika Raj and NALSA, the Court directed the State to make a definitive decision to avoid repeated litigation by members of the community. It remarked:

“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.”

The Court further stressed the need for inclusive representation of at least one trans woman, one trans man, and one intersex person in both District and State Level Monitoring Committees and directed the Government to issue necessary notifications without delay.

On the matter of marriage registration, the Court referred to its previous judgments in Arunkumar v. Inspector General of Registration (AIR 2019 Madras HC 265) and the Supriyo case (2023) and urged the State to issue binding directions to marriage registrars so that transgender and intersex couples could register their marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court also supported proposals such as:

• Recognizing domestic partnerships through deeds of familial association.
• Updating school and medical curricula to include SOGIESC issues.
• Establishing special shelters for gender-nonconforming and intersex children.
• Incorporating Union Government advisories related to joint bank accounts, family ration cards, and prison rights for same-gender couples into the State policy.

The Court emphasised:

“Such policies must benefit the community it is intended for and must not be designed from the viewpoint of cisgender or heterosexual norms.”

Finally, the Court expected that the forthcoming LGBQA+ policy be expedited and harmonised with the Transgender and Intersex Persons Policy to ensure consistency, effectiveness, and equity in implementation.

Court’s Order

The Court issued the following directions and observations:

1. The State Government must clarify and decide on the provision of horizontal reservation for transgender and intersex persons in employment and education.
2. It must formulate and notify the District and State-Level Committees with mandatory representation from trans women, trans men, and intersex persons to ensure effective monitoring of policy implementation.
3. The Government should issue clear instructions to marriage registrars to recognize and register marriages of transgender and intersex persons in accordance with binding judicial precedents.
4. The suggestion to rename the policy as “Transgender and Intersex Persons Policy” in both English and Tamil may be considered by the State.
5. The Court urged the State to take a community-centric approach, incorporate all the directions from the Sushma case, and set up a quasi-judicial LGBTQIA+ Rights Commission for grievance redressal and policy oversight.
6. The forthcoming LGBQA+ policy must be finalized without undue delay and should be harmonized with the current transgender and intersex policy.
7. The National Medical Commission, Tamil Nadu Medical Council, and NCERT were directed to file status reports in line with the earlier orders.

The matter was posted for further hearing on 15.09.2025 at 2:15 p.m. for passing further orders.

Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai