India Supreme Court. File | Photo Credit: Hind
On Thursday (September 18, 2025), the Supreme Court postponed three transgender doctors who sought one percent of the horizontal reserve for transgender candidates in postgraduate medical admission according to Neet-PG 2025-26. The exam took place on 3rd August and the results were announced on August 19.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, who appeared for the petitioner, urged the bench of the chief judge India (CJI) Br Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran to hand over the “harmless order” to allocate two seats under the All India quota and two under the state quota for Transgender candidates.
The chief judge stated that such a direction could cause uncertainty in the adoption process. “We can’t keep the armchairs everywhere in the limb. You ask two seats in the All India quota, two in the state quota,” he said.
The bench also noted the submission of the National Medical Commission advisor that advice has not yet begun for postgraduate medical courses and that no immediate urgency has guaranteed such an order. “Counseling has not begun. We will keep this matter high on board next week,” Cji said.
The application is based on the Supreme Court’s government decision in 2014 in Nalsa v. Union of India, which recognized Transgender persons as “third sex” and ordered their inclusion through a positive measure in education and public employment.
During the proceedings, Mrs. Jaising informed the court that the petitioner Kiran AR had withdrawn from the case and that only the petitioners 2 and 3 from the municipalities and general categories would continue to be suited.
Another general lawyer of Archna Pathak Dave, who appeared for the government of the Union and the medical authorities, said that the general lawyer Tushar Mehta wanted to personally address the wider question of reservation for the person’s transgender. The bench then published a matter for hearing 23 September.
The Supreme Court previously noted that if there was a court direction that ordered a quota for a person of a person, it should be performed. When dealing with a general legal representative, the chief judge noted: “If the 2014 judgment requires a reservation, you must follow. Why don’t you do it within 15% of the quota?”
In particular, 85% of seats at government medical faculties are reserved under the state quota, while the remaining 15% fall within India’s quota.
Humble action
The petitioners also questioned the announcement of April 16 and April 17 Information Bulletin issued by the National Council for Examinations in Medical Sciences and claimed that omitting such quotas is contrary to the court decision in 2014, which ordered affirmative steps and adequate accommodation for transgender in education and public employment.
“As a result of the disturbed announcement, the petitioners are left without remedial, and now there are no reservations about the transgender of the person in postgraduate medical education despite the binding statement of the law by the court,” said Paras Nath Singh.
The application argued that in the absence of horizontal reservation, Transgender students would be deprived of equal opportunities, because they are not currently expanded to be expanded to ensure representation in postgraduate medical education, despite the community faced by established social barriers. He added that the 2014 judgment recognized the fundamental rights of Transgender’s persons under the Constitution, including the right to self -determination of gender identity.
In March 2023, the Supreme Court bench kept by the then chief judge Dy Chandrachud refused to entertain the request to clarify whether the judgment Nalsa ordered a horizontal reservation.
Published – September 18 2025 21:33
