Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy have instructed the Tamil Nadu Advocate General, R Shunmugasundaram, to provide information and take necessary steps regarding the proposed 1% horizontal reservation for transgender individuals by March 4 this year.
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to explore the possibility of implementing a 1% horizontal reservation for transgender individuals in state-run educational institutions and employment across all caste categories. Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy issued the directive during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by transgender activist Grace Ganesan, who advocated for horizontal reservation.
Horizontal reservation involves reservation for a particular class or group that cuts across various categories that already benefit from vertical reservation. In this context, while vertical reservation may apply to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, horizontal reservation could include groups such as persons with disabilities or women.
The PIL argued that the current reservation system for transgender individuals in Tamil Nadu is complex. Presently, transgender persons identifying as women are entitled to the benefits of horizontal reservation for women across all caste categories. However, those identifying as men or as part of the third gender are categorized under their respective caste or the Most Backward Class category, whichever is more advantageous for them.
The court observed that the existing system leads to transgender individuals who do not identify as women, and who belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category, being treated merely as SC/ST male candidates without special consideration for their transgender identity.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s 2014 NALSA judgment, the Madras High Court suggested that the Tamil Nadu government could consider implementing a horizontal reservation policy without exceeding the maximum cap on vertical reservation. The court granted the Tamil Nadu Advocate General, R Shunmugasundaram, until March 4 to provide instructions on the matter, acknowledging that it involves a policy decision.
