SC deferred hearing on plea for transgender reservation in PG medical admissions to Sept 23, refusing to hold seats vacant.
NMC said no urgency since counselling hasn’t begun; govt to argue larger issue of trans reservation.
Petitioners cite the 2014 NALSA ruling and seek recognition of transgender quota as a horizontal reservation across categories.
The Supreme Court postponed the hearing of a plea seeking reservation for transgender candidates in postgraduate medical programs until next week on Thursday.
According to PTI, Senior counsel Indira Jaising's arguments that two seats under the all-India quota and two seats under the state quota be held open for two transgender petitioners were rejected by a panel made up of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
The bench took note of the National Medical Commission's response, which stated that there was no pressing need for such an order because counseling for admission to postgraduate degrees had not yet started.
“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,” the CJI said.
Kiran A.R. and Others vs. Union of India was the petition that was being heard.
In accordance with the historic 2014 NALSA ruling that acknowledged the rights of transgender individuals, including their right to affirmative action, the request sought to establish reservation benefits for transgender candidates in postgraduate medical programs.
Jaising, who was representing the petitioners during the proceedings, told the court that only petitioners 2 and 3, who are OBC and general, respectively, would be pursuing the plea after Kiran A.R. (petitioner 1) withdrew from the case.
“As of today, I am asking for a very innocuous order to keep two seats vacant,” she said.
PTI reported that Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, speaking on behalf of the Union government and medical authorities, stated that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta wanted to directly address the more significant matter of transperson reservation.
The hearing was then postponed until September 23 by the bench.
The top court earlier stated that quotas for transgender people should be granted in accordance with any top court orders.
One of the concerns, according to Jaising, was whether or not the quota for third-gender individuals would be horizontal.
Transgender people would receive the advantage of reservation under the horizontal quota because they belong to the third gender, regardless of whether they were in the SC, ST, OBC, or general categories.
Jaising claims that although both petitioners had taken the entrance tests, there was still uncertainty over the minimum scores needed to recognize transsexual reservations.
She cited inconsistent rulings from many high courts, some of which granted transgender candidates ad hoc reservations while others denied the relief.
