"Policy ‘Must Always Be Addressed from the Perspective of Those within the LGBTQA Community’: Madras High Court Directs Tamil Nadu to Consider Horizontal Reservation, Ensure Representation, and Expedite LGBQA+ Policy"
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Madras Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh has directed the State Government of Tamil Nadu to consider the provision of horizontal reservation for transgender and intersex persons in public employment and educational institutions, ensure adequate representation of community members in district- and state-level committees, and expedite the formulation of a separate policy for LGBQA+ persons. The court also issued directions to address marriage registration challenges faced by transgender and intersex persons, the recognition of domestic partnerships, and the incorporation of community suggestions into the Tamil Nadu State Policy for Transgender Persons 2025. The directives aim to ensure that the policy remains inclusive, effective, and reflective of the needs and perspectives of the LGBTQA community.
The matter pertained to the State Government’s recent introduction of the Tamil Nadu State Policy for Transgender Persons 2025, effective from 31 July 2025. The policy is intended to safeguard the life, safety, health, and well-being of transgender and intersex persons. Tamil Nadu became the seventh state in India to introduce such a policy.
During the hearing, the court recorded that it had heard senior counsel and advocates representing various respondents, including members of the transgender and intersex community. The 27th respondent’s written submissions contained a series of suggestions to improve the implementation of the policy, many of which were reproduced in the order.
The suggestions included strict implementation of penal provisions of the Central Act against persons endangering transgender and intersex individuals, formation of district-level committees with mandatory representation from trans women, trans men, and intersex persons, and creation of a state-level review committee with similar representation.
The submissions also proposed healthcare-related measures such as updating medical curricula to address the needs of transgender and intersex persons, sensitising medical personnel, parents, and family members, halting coercive conversion therapy, and extending pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to gay and bisexual men.
In education, suggestions were made to assist gender non-conforming persons in resuming studies, raise awareness among faculty, staff, and students, and address violence, abuse, and discrimination. Employment-related recommendations called for equal access to both public and private sector jobs in line with directives of the Central Act.
Other recommendations sought to ensure sensitivity among institutional staff in care facilities, incorporate sexual orientation alongside gender identity in training and sensitisation, establish shelters for gender non-conforming and intersex children, and include SOGIESC concepts in school curricula.
Further proposals addressed protection from natal family violence, recognition of life partners in healthcare decision-making, facilitating the registration of marriages between transgender and intersex persons, recognising same-gender unions, ensuring rights to parenting, adoption, and surrogacy, and implementing central advisories on joint bank accounts and ration cards for same-gender couples. Additional advisories covered the treatment of transgender persons in prisons and visitation rights for same-gender partners.
The submissions urged inclusion of all Madras High Court directives in Sushma into the policy, creation of a quasi-judicial LGBTQIA+ Rights Commission, amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, and renaming the policy to explicitly include intersex persons.
The court observed that among the suggestions, the issue of horizontal reservation required immediate consideration. It recorded: "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... 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."
On committee representation, the court stated: "The State Government must ensure that there is representation of at least one transwoman, transman, and intersex person in the Committee for its effective functioning."
Regarding marriage rights, it noted: "The same has already been recognized by the Apex Court but however the real challenge is faced when they seek for registration... the State Government must issue necessary directions to the Registrars about the legal sanction of these marriages."
The court recorded that recognition of domestic partnerships and deeds of familial association was significant due to the absence of such provisions in succession laws, noting that such agreements would allow parties to manage their rights.
On renaming the policy, it stated: "This request can also be considered since ultimately the policy has been brought about by the Government only to help these persons."
The court further recorded: "It must be kept in mind that the policy is not meant to satisfy the requirements from the perspective of a cisgender or a heterosexual and it must always be addressed from the perspective of those persons who fall within the ambit of LGBTQA community."
It observed the need to expedite the LGBQA+ policy: "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."
The court directed the State Government to decide on providing horizontal reservation to transgender and intersex persons in public employment and educational institutions. It ordered that district- and state-level committees must include at least one transwoman, one transman, and one intersex person, and that notifications should be issued appointing these committees for effective policy implementation.
It instructed the State Government to issue directions to Registrars for the registration of marriages involving transgender and intersex persons, in line with the legal recognition provided by the Supreme Court and previous judgments of the High Court.
The Government was directed to consider mechanisms such as deeds of familial association or domestic partnerships to allow parties to govern their rights in the absence of succession law recognition.
It was further directed that the request to rename the policy to explicitly include intersex persons could be considered, and that the policy must always be approached from the perspective of the LGBTQA community.
The court recorded that the LGBQA+ policy was under process and directed the State to expedite its completion. It also set timelines for filing status reports by the National Medical Commission, Tamil Nadu State Medical Council, and responses on the NCERT module.
The matter was posted for further orders on 15 September 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Vadhana Bhaskar for Mr. S. Manuraj
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor; Mr. Sriram Panchu, Senior Counsel; Mr. G. Sankaran, Senior Counsel; Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, Senior Panel Counsel; Mr. K. Chandrasekar; Ms. Subharanjani; Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu; Mrs. B.S. Ajeetha; Mr. B. Rabu Manohar; Mr. U. Baranidharan, Standing Counsel; Mr. Jayna Kothari
Case Title: Mrs. S. Sushma & Anr. v. Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Department & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. No. 7284 of 2021
Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
