Kerala High Court Upholds NCC’s Present Gender-Based Enrollment Scheme; Transgender Exclusion Not Unconstitutional, Centre Directed To Review Law For Inclusivity
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh held that the present framework of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948—which limits enrollment to male and female students—does not presently render the exclusion of transgender applicants unconstitutional and consequently declined to intervene in the petitioner’s rejection. The case concerned the refusal to admit a transgender student to the NCC based on gender-specific divisions maintained under the statute. While dismissing the challenge, the Court urged the Union Government to examine the need for legislative changes to ensure broader inclusion within the Corps.
The petitioner, a transgender student, submitted an application for enrolment in the 30(K) Battalion of the National Cadet Corps under the Calicut Group. A selection process was conducted, and the petitioner met all eligibility requirements. However, during the interview stage, the petitioner was informed that being a transgender person, enrolment in the NCC was not permissible. This rejection, based solely on gender identity, was challenged in the writ proceedings. The petitioner contended that the refusal violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.
Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 filed a counter affidavit. They submitted that the petitioner had applied for enrolment on 16.08.2024 and participated in the selection process. During the interview, the petitioner’s gender identity was revealed. The respondents stated that under Section 6 of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948, only students of male sex and female sex may offer themselves for enrolment in the respective divisions. Since the statute and existing policies provide for only boys' and girls' divisions, transgender students cannot be enrolled. The respondents asserted that the decision was legally justified.
The Court considered the pleadings and submissions of the parties. It recorded that NCC aims to develop discipline, character, comradeship, and leadership among young citizens, and that its training methodology mirrors that of the Armed Forces. The Court noted that NCC training involves close contact physical exercises, games, long and short camps, and residential field conditions, where gender becomes a relevant factor for ensuring well-being and safety.
The statutory framework, especially Section 6(1) and 6(2) of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948, was central to the dispute. The Act provides for senior and junior divisions exclusively for male and female students, without any comparable provision for transgender students.
The Court recorded that “The petitioner is a Transgender. The petitioner submitted application for enrollment in 30(K)Bn. National Cadet Corps Calicut Group.” It noted that although the petitioner satisfied all eligibility criteria, “the petitioner was informed that he being a Transgender, cannot be enrolled in NCC.”
The Court recorded the petitioner’s challenge that rejection based on gender identity constituted a violation of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21. It noted the respondents’ assertion that the NCC Act permits only male and female students to apply and that divisions are structured accordingly.
The Court examined the statutory scheme and stated that NCC was established by the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948. It observed that NCC aims at “developing character, comradeship, discipline, the spirit of adventure and ideals of selfless service among young citizens.” It further recorded that NCC seeks to create “a pool of organised, trained and motivated youth with leadership qualities in all walks of life.”
On the nature of NCC training, the Court stated that NCC follows a methodology similar to the Armed Forces and that training involves “close contact, physical exercises / games, long and short camps where cadets staying in field conditions in tentage, confined accommodation, etc. where gender of the Cadet is an important aspect.”
The Court examined Section 6 of the Act and observed: “Section 6(1)… provides that any student of the male sex… may offer himself for enrollment… Section 6(2) provides that any student of the female sex… may offer herself for enrollment… There is no comparable provision for Transgenders.” It concluded that “under the Act, 1948 a Transgender student cannot be enrolled in NCC Divisions.”
The Court acknowledged the inequity faced by transgender students, stating: “It is true that candidates belonging to Transgender section stand to lose… and ideally the Transgender students should also get opportunity to enroll in NCC.” However, it recorded that gender-specific divisions exist due to the nature of training and living conditions, and that “authorities are bound to take measures for the well being of the Cadets belonging to different genders.”
The Court concluded that “there is intelligible differentia in the matter of providing differential treatment in NCC for persons belonging to different genders.” It further stated that forming transgender divisions “would require minimum / sufficient number of Transgender students… Those are matters of policy… Implementation… would require legislative intervention also.”
The Court directed: “The writ petition is hence dismissed. The Registry is, however, directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretaries of Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, for consideration of the issue and action, as is found necessary.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Adv. Smt. Dhanuja M.S.
For the Respondents: Sri. Dayasindhu Shreehari N.S., Senior Panel Counsel; Sri. Dheeraj A.S., Government Pleader.
Case Title: Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:86180
Case Number: WP(C) No.33642 of 2024
Bench: Justice N. Nagaresh
