The Supreme Court on Thursday deferred till next week the hearing of a plea seeking reservation for transgender candidates in postgraduate medical courses.
A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing the matter when senior advocate Indira Jaising requested that 2 seats each under the all-India and state quotas be kept vacant for the petitioners. The bench, however, refused, noting that counselling for admissions had not yet begun.
“We cannot keep seats everywhere in limbo. You are saying two seats in all-India quota, two in state quota. Counselling has not started. We will keep this matter for next week high on board,” CJI Gavai said.
Plea Seeks Quota In Line With NALSA Judgment
The case, Kiran A.R. and Others vs Union of India, seeks implementation of reservation benefits for transgender candidates in PG medical admissions. The plea relies on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2014 NALSA judgment, which recognised the rights of transgender persons and upheld their entitlement to affirmative action.
During the proceedings, Jaising clarified that the lead petitioner, Kiran A.R., had withdrawn, and only petitioners 2 and 3—belonging to the OBC and general categories—would pursue the plea.
Union Govt To Address Larger Issue
Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for the Union government and medical authorities, told the court that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta wished to personally address the larger issue of transgender reservation. The bench then scheduled the matter for September 23.
Horizontal vs Vertical Quota Debate
Jaising flagged a critical issue: whether reservation for transgender persons should be horizontal or vertical.
Horizontal quota would cut across caste categories (SC, ST, OBC, General), allowing transgender persons reservation benefits irrespective of their caste status.
Under vertical quota, they would be included only within their existing caste-based categories.
The petitioners argued for horizontal reservation, ensuring broader access to seats.
Conflicting Court Rulings
Jaising also pointed out that high courts across the country have issued conflicting orders: some granting ad-hoc reservations to transgender candidates, while others declined similar relief. This inconsistency, she argued, left transgender aspirants in uncertainty.
Both petitioners have cleared the entrance exams, but ambiguity persists over cut-off marks and whether transgender reservation will be formally recognised.
Previously, the court observed that if a judicial order exists mandating quota for transgender persons, it must be implemented. With the Centre indicating that the issue will be argued at length, the coming week’s hearing may provide crucial clarity on whether and how transgender candidates will receive reservation in medical education.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
