Not from a Cisgender Lens – Madras HC Lauds TN’s 2025 Transgender Policy, Demands Clarity on Reservation, Marriage Rights, and Civil Unions

In what Justice N. Anand Venkatesh described as “a victory for the transgender and intersex persons, after their long struggle,” the Madras High Court commended the Tamil Nadu Government for enacting the Tamil Nadu State Policy for Transgender Persons, 2025, but warned that the policy must be sharpened to meet the community’s real needs. “It must always be addressed from the perspective of those persons who fall within the ambit of LGBTQA community… ultimately, such policies must benefit them,” the Court declared.

The Court acknowledged Tamil Nadu as the seventh State to bring such a policy, effective from 31 July 2025, and praised its coverage of life, safety, health, and well-being. Yet, it signalled that applause alone would not suffice, especially when the text contained ambiguity and potential gaps in enforceability.

A key flashpoint was Clause 3.7 of the policy, which speaks of a “Right to Representation in Employment and Educational Institution.” The Court questioned whether this meant horizontal reservation—a demand long raised by the community and backed by earlier rulings, including NALSA v. Union of India and Rakshika Raj v. State of Tamil Nadu. Justice Venkatesh directed, “The State Government must take a decision in this regard so that the transgender and intersex persons need not knock the doors of this Court every time.”

On marriage rights, the Court observed that despite the legal recognition of transgender marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act by both the Apex Court and the Madras High Court in Arunkumar and later reiterated in Supriyo, couples still face “real challenges” when registering their unions. The bench ordered the State to issue explicit instructions to Registrars “about the legal sanction of these marriages” to prevent further discrimination.

The order also ventured into uncharted territory by urging the Government to legally acknowledge same-gender unions through mechanisms like a “Deed of Familial Association” or other forms of civil partnership. As Justice Venkatesh pointed out, “None of the Succession Acts recognizes such rights… parties must be able to at least deal with their own rights by entering into such agreements.”

Significantly, the Court endorsed the community’s request to rename the policy as the “Transgender and Intersex Persons Policy” (jpUeh; kw;Wk; ,ilghy; ,dj;jth; bfhs;if), reminding the State that “the policy is not meant to satisfy the requirements from the perspective of a cisgender or a heterosexual.”

The Court further called for immediate formation of the District and State-level Committees envisaged under the policy, insisting that each must include at least one trans woman, one trans man, and one intersex person to ensure authentic representation. On healthcare, it noted with approval the policy’s promise to revise medical curricula, end coercive conversion therapy, and provide Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP), but stressed that reforms must address the full spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identity.

While congratulating the State for this landmark policy, Justice Venkatesh made it clear that symbolic gestures must evolve into tangible rights. “A Welfare State must ensure that their requirements are understood and they are fulfilled,” he concluded, while also urging the Government to expedite the long-pending LGBQA+ policy.

Date of Decision: 4 August 2025