Tamil Nadu's trans policy: Aspirational yet incomplete

Hindustan Times

a day ago

The government of Tamil Nadu has released its State Policy for Transgender Persons, reaffirming its historical leadership in recognising gender-diverse lives. The policy is both expansive and aspirational, aiming to institutionalise dignity, non-discrimination, and socio-economic inclusion for transgender and intersex persons across the state. Unlike the narrower contours of the central legislation, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the Tamil Nadu policy charts a more intersectional and rights-affirming vision. Despite its progressive aspirations, the Tamil Nadu State Policy raises significant concerns, particularly on inclusivity in language, the design of reservations, and the narrow scope of its mandate. (HT Photo)
At its core, the policy upholds the right to self-identification and mandates all state agencies to respect a person's self-declared gender identity without requiring surgical or medical intervention. It affirms that transgender and intersex persons are entitled to equality before the law and protection from discrimination in all spheres of life.
The policy spans a wide range of domains: education, employment, housing, health, legal recognition, protection from violence, and political participation. In education, it mandates anti-discrimination measures, the appointment of grievance redressal officers, and inclusion of gender diversity in curricula. Employment provisions require both public and private workplaces to ensure non-discriminatory hiring, sensitisation programmes, equal career progression, and redress mechanisms. The policy also encourages private employers to extend CSR support for the community.
In health care, the policy promises to expand coverage under state insurance schemes to include gender-affirming procedures, train health care workers in trans-competent care, and provide accessible mental health services. It also outlines commitments to legal aid, inclusive housing, shelter homes, and electoral participation. The Transgender Welfare Board is tasked with implementing many of these programmes, including skill development, recruitment drives, and sensitisation efforts.
Finally, the policy affirms an intersectional approach, acknowledging that caste, religion, class, and disability may compound the marginalisation faced by trans and intersex persons. The policy also has a section on implementation and monitoring, which requires periodic review of the policy and establishes an oversight mechanism at the executive level.
Despite its progressive aspirations, the Tamil Nadu State Policy raises significant concerns — particularly on inclusivity in language, the design of reservations, and the narrow scope of its mandate.
First, the Tamil version of the policy uses the word thirunangai: a term that traditionally refers to trans women. The more inclusive and gender-neutral term thirunar is widely used by the community to include trans men and non-binary persons. The persistence of thirunangai in official parlance has significant consequences: trans men in Tamil Nadu have often been turned away from benefits and services under previous schemes because the policies were worded in a way that excluded them. This policy risks reproducing that pattern. The use of exclusionary terminology could undermine its stated commitment to recognising diverse gender identities.
Second, the policy makes an important step by recognising transgender and intersex persons as 'socially and educationally most disadvantaged', thus aligning with the Supreme Court's directive in NALSA v. Union of India to extend reservations, something the Transgender Persons Act, 2019 failed to do.
Currently, transgender persons in Tamil Nadu are classified under the Most Backward Classes (MBC) category under the state's reservation law. While this offers formal inclusion, it flattens caste and gendered experiences into a single vertical category, ignoring intersectionality. Grace Banu's petition before the Madras High Court seeks horizontal reservations for trans and intersex persons, similar to those for women and persons with disabilities, allowing them to claim benefits across caste lines. Judicial decisions in Nangai v. Superintendent of Police and T. Thanasu v. Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu have already recognised the right of transgender women to apply under the 'woman' category. Yet, the policy does not reflect this jurisprudence or explicitly commit to horizontal reservations. The reservation framework is expected to be announced in the Assembly, and its design will determine whether inclusion is meaningful or whether it misses these nuances.
Third, the policy falls short of the expectations set by the judiciary itself. In Sushma v. Commissioner of Police, the Madras High Court had explicitly directed the State to formulate a comprehensive policy for the LGBTQIA+ community. The Court envisioned a broad-based framework that would address issues of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status. The present policy, however, limits itself to transgender and intersex persons, leaving out lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer individuals altogether. This narrow framing is a missed opportunity to institutionalise protections for the broader queer community and reinforces the fragmentation of LGBTQIA+ advocacy into piecemeal categories.
In sum, while the Tamil Nadu State Policy for Transgender Persons makes meaningful strides in codifying state responsibilities toward transgender and intersex persons, it remains incomplete. If Tamil Nadu is to maintain its reputation as a pioneer in gender justice, the policy must undergo further revision — adopting inclusive language, committing to horizontal reservations, and expanding its scope to address the full spectrum of queer experiences. Anything short of this would not be able to ensure true equality, justice, and social inclusion.
Jwalika Balaji is research fellow (research director's office), Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. The views expressed are personal.