Kerala High Court Issues Notice To Centre, NCC On Appeal Against Exclusion Of Transgender Persons From National Cadet Corps

The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishnan Kumar also issued notice to the Central and State Governments, NCC, and other respondents in the plea.

The Single Bench had found that Section 6 of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 restricts enrollment to students of the male and female sexes alone. It had then urged the Central Government to consider amending the law to ensure inclusivity.

The petitioner/appellant is a transgender person identifying as a male, i.e., a transman. He had applied for enrollment in the NCC and had cleared all the stages in the selection process. Thereafter, his candidature was rejected at the interview stage merely on the ground that transgender persons are not permitted to be enrolled as per the Act.

The appellant has challenged the decision of the Single Judge urging that the same fails to give effect to the binding constitutional principles laid down in the NALSA v. Union of India.

It is further contended that the impugned judgment overlooks the statutory mandate under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which explicitly prohibits discrimination against transgender persons in educational institutions and guarantees equal participation in all related activities.

“NCC enrollment, being an integral component of institutional development, falls squarely within the scope of such protection. The learned Single Judge erred in adopting a narrow, literal interpretation of Section 6 of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948, instead of reading it in a constitutionally compliant manner. The absence of an express provision for transgender persons cannot be used as a ground to deny fundamental rights. The reasoning based on administrative convenience, safety concerns, and lack of infrastructure is legally untenable, as such considerations cannot override constitutional guarantees. The State is under a positive obligation to ensure inclusion and provide reasonable accommodation to marginalized groups,” states the appellant.

It is also submitted that Section 6 of the Act is unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution as interpreted in the NALSA case. The appellant has also taken several other grounds to challenge the Single Judge's decision.

The appeal is posted for further consideration on May 26, post summer vacation.

The appeal is moved by Advocate Dhanuja M.S.

Case No: WA No. 795 of 2026

Case Title: Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India and Ors.