On Thursday, September 18, 2025, the Supreme Court deferred a hearing on a crucial petition brought by three transgender doctors. They are seeking the implementation of a one percent horizontal reservation for transgender candidates in the NEET-PG 2025–26 postgraduate medical admissions. The NEET-PG examination took place on August 3, with results announced on August 19.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing the transgender doctors, appealed to a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran. She requested an “innocuous order” that would reserve two seats under the All India quota and another two under the State quota specifically for transgender candidates.
The Chief Justice expressed concerns that such a directive could introduce uncertainty into the ongoing admission process. “We cannot leave seats in limbo across various quotas. You are requesting specific allocations, two under the All India quota and two under the State quota,” he observed.
The Bench further acknowledged the National Medical Commission’s counsel, who stated that counseling for postgraduate medical courses had not yet commenced, implying no immediate urgency for such an order. “Counseling has not started. We will schedule this matter for a high-priority hearing next week,” the CJI confirmed.
The core of the petition rests on the Supreme Court’s pivotal 2014 judgment in NALSA v. Union of India. This landmark ruling officially recognized transgender individuals as a “third gender” and explicitly called for their inclusion through affirmative action policies in both educational institutions and public sector employment.
During the court proceedings, Ms. Jaising updated the bench, stating that petitioner Kiran A.R. had withdrawn from the case. Consequently, only petitioners two and three, belonging to the OBC (Other Backward Classes) and general categories respectively, would proceed with the plea.
Representing the Union government and medical authorities, Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave conveyed that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta intended to personally argue on the wider subject of reservation policies for transgender individuals. Following this, the Bench scheduled the next hearing for September 23.
The Supreme Court had previously noted that any judicial directive mandating a quota for transgender persons must be duly implemented. In a direct address to the Solicitor General, the Chief Justice had stated, “If the 2014 judgment necessitates providing reservation, you are obligated to comply. Why is it not being implemented within the existing 15% quota?”
It’s important to note that within government medical colleges, 85% of seats are allocated under the State quota, with the remaining 15% falling under the All India quota.
The Call for Affirmative Action
The petitioners have additionally challenged specific documents: the April 16 notice and the April 17 information bulletin released by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences. They argue that the absence of a designated quota in these documents directly violates the Supreme Court’s 2014 verdict, which explicitly called for affirmative action and appropriate accommodations for transgender individuals in educational and employment settings.
The petition, filed through advocate Paras Nath Singh, asserts that “as a consequence of the contested notice, the petitioners possess a right but no corresponding remedy. This means that despite the Supreme Court’s definitive legal declaration, there are currently no reservations for transgender persons in postgraduate medical education.”
The plea further contended that without horizontal reservation, transgender students would be denied equal opportunities. Currently, no specific reservation exists to guarantee their representation in postgraduate medical education, despite the significant societal barriers faced by the community. It highlighted that the 2014 judgment had affirmed the fundamental constitutional rights of transgender individuals, notably including the right to self-determination of their gender identity.
It’s worth noting that in March 2023, a Supreme Court Bench, then headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, had declined to hear an application that sought clarification on whether the NALSA judgment explicitly mandated horizontal reservation.