On a slightly humid Thursday morning, Court Hall No. 6 at the Kerala High Court felt unusually attentive. Justice N. Nagareesh, who is known for his crisp, no-nonsense hearings, took up the petition filed by 22-year-old Janvin Cleetus, a transgender student denied enrollment in the National Cadet Corps (NCC). The courtroom was quiet, almost reflective, as the judge began reading out the final order in WP(C) No. 33642 of 2024.
Background
Janvin had applied to join the 30(K) Battalion, NCC Calicut Group, after clearing all initial stages of screening. According to the petition, everything went smoothly until the interview panel learned that he was a transgender person. What followed, Janvin argued, was a blunt rejection purely on the basis of gender identity.
His counsel, Adv. Dhanuja M.S., stressed that such exclusion “cuts straight into Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21,” meaning equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, and personal liberty. The respondents the Union of India, NCC authorities, and the State stood firm on the statutory wording of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948, which recognizes only “students of male sex” and “students of female sex” for enrollment.
Court’s Observations
Justice Nagareesh took time to reflect on the wider context of NCC training. He noted that the organization is built to mirror aspects of military life close-contact drills, physically intensive routines, combined camps where cadets live together in tents or compact quarters. In such conditions, he said, gender considerations are not superficial but tied to “overall well-being and safety.”
At one point during the hearing, the bench observed,
“The Act, as it stands today, simply does not provide for enrollment of transgender cadets. Courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions.” The judge clarified that while an ideal situation would certainly include transgender youth in NCC programs, courts cannot step into the shoes of policymakers.
The respondents went a step further and argued that any new division say, a transgender NCC wing could only be formed if there were enough candidates to justify it. Again, the judge did not contest the logic, acknowledging the existence of what he called an “intelligible differentia” between gender categories as recognized under the 1948 Act.
Still, Justice Nagareesh did not shy away from expressing discomfort at the exclusion faced by transgender students. “Ideally, transgender students must also get equal opportunity,” he remarked in the judgment, though he added that such inclusion would require a combination of policy reform and legislative amendment.
Decision
In the end, the court dismissed Janvin’s plea. However, the judgment did not close the door entirely. The bench issued a noteworthy direction: The Registry must forward a copy of the judgment to the Secretaries of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Law and Justice so they may consider whether policy or legislative intervention is needed.
With that, the judge concluded the matter. The courtroom fell into a moment of stillness, as if everyone was weighing the significance of a young transgender student’s aspirations colliding with the boundaries of an old statute.
Case Title:- Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Numbe:- W.P.(C) No. 33642 of 2024