The Supreme Court of India, on October 6, 2025, heard a writ petition filed by two transgender doctors seeking horizontal reservation in NEET-PG admissions, in accordance with the landmark NALSA v. Union of India (2014) judgment. The petitioners have challenged the NEET-PG notification for failing to provide counselling provisions for transgender candidates and sought immediate relief to secure seats under the All India and State quotas.

A Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar heard the plea and directed the States and Union Territories which have not yet filed affidavits to submit them, specifying the timeframe within which they plan to implement horizontal reservation for transgender persons in medical admissions.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising sought interim relief by reserving two seats in the All India Quota and one seat each in the Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh State Quotas, contending that counselling had not yet commenced. She argued that without such interim protection, the petitioners—both qualified medical professionals—would lose their opportunity to pursue higher education.

On behalf of the Union of India, Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave informed the Court that a contempt petition (Mx Kamlesh & Ors. v. Niten Chandra) concerning the implementation of the NALSA judgment is already pending before the Chief Justice of India’s bench, and all States and Union Territories are parties to that case.

The bench initially considered transferring the present matter to the CJI-led bench to avoid parallel proceedings, but later directed the ASG to clarify the scope of the pending contempt petition.

Jaising explained that her petition was limited to specific relief for two individuals, while the contempt matter concerned broader implementation of transgender reservation. However, Justice Narasimha expressed concern that granting interim relief only to two individuals would not be equitable, noting:

“It’s not as if only two persons have come to us. The NALSA judgment mandates reservation, but quantification and policy decisions must come from the States. We cannot make provisions just because two individuals have approached the Court.”

Jaising clarified that granting interim relief would not deprive other transgender candidates, as selections would still depend on merit. Yet, Justice Narasimha maintained that the Court must take a “holistic view” of the issue and not be driven by individual claims. He added that the Court’s role was to ensure uniform implementation of transgender reservation across India, not ad hoc relief for a few.

The bench then observed that it could direct all States to indicate the timeline for implementing the NALSA-mandated reservation policy and that, even if it could not be enforced this year, it must be operational by next year’s admission cycle.

While declining interim relief, the Court directed the Union Government and concerned States to take instructions and file affidavits regarding their position on implementing horizontal reservation for transgender persons.

When asked about the Union’s stand in the contempt matter, ASG Dave stated that the Central Government’s position is that transgender persons may avail of existing reservations for SC, ST, OBC, or EWS categories and that no separate reservation is envisaged. She further added that the definition of “transgender person” in the law was broad and under review. In response, Justice Narasimha remarked:

“If the legislature believes amendment is needed, who is stopping it from doing so?”

Jaising countered that her clients are officially recognised transgender persons holding valid identity cards under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

The petitioners have prayed for a direction to issue a fresh NEET-PG admission notification providing 1% horizontal reservation for transgender candidates in each vertical category.

The petition has been drawn by Advocates Rohin Bhatt, Harshit Anand, and Rajagopalan R, settled by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, and filed through AOR Paras Nath Singh.

Case Details: Kiran A.R. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 461/2025