Statutory Exclusion and Constitutional Aspiration: The Kerala High Court’s Decision in Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India and the Case for Transgender Inclusion in the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948
By Guru Legal
Keywords: National Cadet Corps Act, 1948; Section 6; transgender rights; Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India; Kerala High Court; Article 14; Article 15; Article 21; National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India; Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019; gender identity; reasonable classification; legislative reform; military enrolment; NALSA judgment; inclusive governance
Abstract
The National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 (hereinafter, the NCC Act), which establishes the legal framework for the National Cadet Corps of India, provides under Section 6 for the enrolment of students of the male sex in the Senior and Junior Divisions and students of the female sex in the Girls Division, without making any provision for a third gender category. The Kerala High Court, in Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India and Others, was called upon to determine whether the exclusion of transgender persons from enrolment in the NCC under Section 6 of the NCC Act is constitutionally valid in the light of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter, the Constitution), and the rights of transgender persons recognised in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 (hereinafter, NALSA). Justice N. Nagaresh held that the present statutory text of the NCC Act, which creates a binary enrolment scheme for male and female cadets, does not provide authority for the judicial direction of transgender enrolment, and accordingly dismissed the petition while directing the Court’s Registry to forward the judgment to the Secretaries of the Union Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Law and Justice with a view to facilitating policy and legislative reform. The judgment raises profound questions about the adequacy of India’s legislative framework in giving effect to the constitutional rights of transgender persons, particularly in the sphere of State-sponsored youth development and leadership training, and invites a considered legislative response to the Court’s direction. This article examines the statutory framework, analyses the constitutional dimensions of the exclusion, and advances a set of recommendations for legislative and institutional reform.
Introduction
The National Cadet Corps of India, constituted under the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948, is the premier youth development and military training organisation of the Government of India, with a presence in schools and colleges across the country and a mandate to develop character, comradeship, discipline, leadership, secular outlook, spirit of adventure, and ideals of selfless service in young Indian citizens. The NCC plays a significant role in the educational and developmental trajectory of hundreds of thousands of young Indians each year, and enrolment in the NCC is accordingly a meaningful entitlement of considerable social, professional, and civic value. The constitutional and statutory framework of India requires that the benefits of such State-sponsored programmes be available to all citizens on a non-discriminatory basis, consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438, recognised that transgender persons are entitled to the full protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, including the right to equality under Article 14, the right to non-discrimination under Article 15, and the right to life with dignity and personal autonomy under Article 21. The NALSA judgment further directed the Central and State governments to take affirmative measures to include transgender persons in all spheres of public life, including education and government programmes, and to treat transgender persons as a socially and educationally backward class entitled to the benefit of affirmative action measures. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, enacted to give legislative effect to the NALSA directions, prohibits discrimination against transgender persons in educational establishments and public services under Section 3.
It is in this constitutional and legislative context that the petition filed by Janvin Cleetus, a twenty-two-year-old transgender man, before the Kerala High Court, seeking enrolment in the 30(K) Battalion of the NCC under the Calicut Group, assumes considerable constitutional significance. The petitioner, who had been provisionally considered in the selection process but was subsequently informed that transgender candidates were ineligible for enrolment under prevailing norms, challenged the exclusion as unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Kerala High Court’s decision to dismiss the petition on the ground that the NCC Act’s binary enrolment scheme does not, in its present form, provide statutory authority for the judicially ordered enrolment of transgender cadets, while directing the executive and legislature to consider policy and legislative reform, reflects a careful and principled navigation of the tension between statutory interpretation and constitutional aspiration.
This article proceeds in four parts. The first part examines the statutory framework of Section 6 of the NCC Act and its constitutional implications in the light of NALSA and the Transgender Persons Act, 2019. The second part analyses the Kerala High Court’s judgment in Janvin Cleetus and situates it within the broader jurisprudential context of transgender rights in India. The third part assesses the consequences of the exclusion for transgender persons and for the NCC’s public mandate of inclusive national development. The fourth part advances recommendations for legislative and institutional reform.
Section 6 of the NCC Act, 1948: Binary Enrolment, Constitutional Classification, and the NALSA Framework
Section 6 of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 provides, in relevant part, that any student of the male sex who is a citizen of India and who satisfies the prescribed conditions shall be eligible for enrolment in the Senior or Junior Division of the NCC, and that any student of the female sex who satisfies the prescribed conditions shall be eligible for enrolment in the Girls Division. The provision creates a binary framework of enrolment predicated upon the binary distinction between male and female students, without any provision for a third gender category or for the enrolment of transgender persons in any of the existing Divisions or in a dedicated transgender Division. The statutory text of Section 6, enacted in 1948, reflects the then-prevailing assumption of gender binarity and does not contemplate the constitutional recognition of transgender identity subsequently established in NALSA and in the Transgender Persons Act, 2019.
The constitutional standard applicable to the classification created by Section 6 of the NCC Act is the test of Article 14, which prohibits arbitrary State action and requires that legislative classifications be based upon an intelligible differentia that bears a rational nexus to the object of the legislation. The Kerala High Court, in the Janvin Cleetus judgment, held that the gender-based Divisions established by Section 6 of the NCC Act satisfy the intelligible differentia test, on the basis that the NCC’s organisational structure, involving close-contact physical exercises, tented accommodation, and mixed-camp environments, provides a legitimate basis for gender-wise organisation for cadet welfare. This reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on Article 14, which recognises that the legislatively prescribed separation of cadets on the basis of sex in physical training and residential contexts may, in principle, constitute a reasonable and non-arbitrary classification.
The more difficult constitutional question, however, is whether the complete exclusion of transgender persons from the NCC enrolment framework, as a consequence of the binary scheme of Section 6, is consistent with the constitutional recognition of transgender rights in NALSA and the statutory prohibition on discrimination against transgender persons in public services and educational establishments under Section 3 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. It is submitted that the statutory exclusion of transgender persons from NCC enrolment is not merely a classification that organises cadets by gender but is a complete bar to participation in a State-sponsored programme of national significance, a consequence that engages the constitutional right to equality under Article 14 and the right to non-discrimination under Article 15 in a manner that demands more rigorous constitutional scrutiny than the Court’s application of the intelligible differentia test in its present form.
Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India: The Court’s Reasoning and the Limits of Judicial Power in Legislative Reform
The Kerala High Court’s judgment in Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India, delivered by Justice N. Nagaresh, reflects a principled recognition of the limits of judicial power in the face of a clear statutory text that does not accommodate the constitutional aspirations of the NALSA framework. The Court held that Section 6 of the NCC Act, in its present form, permits only the enrolment of male and female students in the respective Divisions, and contains no comparable provision for transgender persons, making a judicially directed enrolment of the petitioner ultra vires the statute. The Court accordingly declined to grant the relief sought and dismissed the petition, while directing its Registry to bring the judgment to the attention of the Secretaries of the Union Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Law and Justice with a view to facilitating policy and legislative reform to enable transgender enrolment in the NCC.
The Court’s reasoning in the Janvin Cleetus judgment must be understood in the light of the prior Kerala High Court jurisprudence on transgender enrolment in the NCC. An earlier single judge decision in 2021 and a Division Bench decision in March 2024 had recognised the eligibility of a transwoman for enrolment as a female cadet, consistent with her self-identified gender under Section 6(2) of the NCC Act and the NALSA principles. The present case was distinguished on the ground that the petitioner is a transman seeking enrolment as a transgender person in a framework that remains textually binary, rather than seeking enrolment consistent with a self-identified binary gender. This distinction, while doctrinally defensible, reveals a constitutional asymmetry in the application of NALSA principles to NCC enrolment: a transgender person who self-identifies as either male or female may be eligible for enrolment consistent with that self-identification, while a transgender person who does not conform to the binary and seeks recognition as transgender is entirely excluded from the NCC enrolment framework.
The Court’s direction to the executive and legislature to consider policy and legislative reform is a significant and judicially appropriate response to the constitutional gap identified in the Janvin Cleetus judgment. The Court acknowledged that the formation of a transgender Division in the NCC would require feasibility studies and a determination of the minimum and sufficient cohort necessary for such a Division to be operationally viable, matters that are squarely within the legislative and executive competence and cannot be resolved by judicial direction alone. In directing the executive and legislature’s attention to the need for reform, the Court has discharged its constitutional responsibility to give effect to the aspirations of the NALSA framework within the limits of its power under the doctrine of separation of powers.
Consequences and Implications for Transgender Rights and the NCC’s Public Mandate
The consequences of the statutory exclusion of transgender persons from NCC enrolment, as confirmed in the Janvin Cleetus judgment, are significant for the rights of transgender persons and for the NCC’s public mandate of inclusive national youth development. The NCC, as a State-sponsored programme operating under the authority of the Government of India, is bound by the constitutional prohibitions on discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 and by the statutory prohibition on discrimination against transgender persons in public services under Section 3 of the Transgender Persons Act, 2019. The continued exclusion of transgender persons from NCC enrolment, absent legislative reform, perpetuates a form of institutional discrimination against the transgender community that is inconsistent with the constitutional values affirmed in NALSA and with the legislative intent of the Transgender Persons Act, 2019.
The broader implications of the Janvin Cleetus judgment extend to the question of how India’s military and paramilitary organisations, including the Armed Forces and the Central Armed Police Forces, ought to respond to the constitutional recognition of transgender rights. The exclusion of transgender persons from NCC enrolment reflects a wider pattern of institutional exclusion of the transgender community from organisations and opportunities that are open to all other Indian citizens, a pattern that is increasingly difficult to reconcile with the constitutional framework established in NALSA and the Transgender Persons Act, 2019. The NCC, as a youth development organisation rather than a frontline military body, is arguably the most appropriate starting point for the integration of transgender cadets into India’s defence and security training ecosystem, and the legislative reform directed by the Kerala High Court in Janvin Cleetus would represent an important symbolic and practical step in this direction.
The Case for Reform: Legislative and Institutional Recommendations
The first area of reform concerns the amendment of Section 6 of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 to introduce a third gender category for enrolment in the NCC, consistent with the constitutional recognition of transgender identity in NALSA and the statutory framework of the Transgender Persons Act, 2019. It is submitted that the amendment ought to provide for the enrolment of transgender persons in the NCC either through the creation of a dedicated Transgender Division, as suggested in the Janvin Cleetus judgment, or through the inclusion of transgender persons in the existing male and female Divisions on the basis of the self-identified gender of the individual cadet, consistent with the approach adopted in the prior Kerala High Court decisions regarding the enrolment of a transwoman as a female cadet. The choice between these two approaches ought to be made in consultation with transgender rights organisations and with the transgender community itself, with a view to adopting the approach that best reflects the preferences and needs of transgender cadets.
The second area of reform pertains to the development of NCC-specific guidelines for the accommodation, welfare, and support of transgender cadets in the NCC’s residential and training environments. The Kerala High Court in Janvin Cleetus acknowledged that the NCC’s training activities, including close-contact physical exercises, tented accommodation, and mixed-camp environments, may require specific arrangements for the welfare of transgender cadets. It is submitted that the Ministry of Defence and the NCC Directorate ought to constitute a Committee comprising transgender rights experts, NCC officials, and medical professionals to develop comprehensive guidelines addressing the specific needs of transgender cadets in the NCC environment, including accommodation arrangements, access to gender-appropriate facilities, and protocols for addressing instances of harassment or discrimination against transgender cadets.
The third area of reform addresses the amendment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 to expressly include military training organisations such as the NCC within the scope of the educational establishments and public services in respect of which discrimination against transgender persons is prohibited under Section 3 of the Act. While the NCC is a State-sponsored organisation and is arguably already covered by the general prohibition on discrimination in public services under Section 3(1)(d) of the Transgender Persons Act, 2019, an express provision addressing military training organisations would remove any ambiguity and would strengthen the statutory basis for the inclusion of transgender persons in the NCC.
The fourth area of reform pertains to the establishment of an outreach and support programme for transgender youth who are interested in enrolment in the NCC, with a view to facilitating their participation in the enrolment process and addressing the practical barriers that they may encounter. The National Legal Services Authority, in partnership with the NCC Directorate and transgender rights organisations, ought to establish a dedicated help desk and legal aid service for transgender youth seeking NCC enrolment, and ought to conduct awareness programmes in schools and colleges to inform transgender students of their rights and of the avenues available to them for seeking inclusion in the NCC upon the enactment of the legislative amendments recommended in this article.
The fifth area of reform concerns the inclusion of the NCC’s reform experience in the broader national policy framework for the inclusion of transgender persons in public institutions. It is submitted that the National Council for Transgender Persons, constituted under Section 16 of the Transgender Persons Act, 2019, ought to include the reform of the NCC enrolment framework in its agenda and ought to advise the Central Government on the implementation of the legislative amendments recommended in this article and on the development of a comprehensive policy for the inclusion of transgender persons in all State-sponsored youth development, sports, and military training programmes.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Kerala High Court in Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India, while legally correct in its finding that the binary enrolment scheme of Section 6 of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 does not, in its present form, provide statutory authority for the judicially ordered enrolment of a transgender cadet, represents a significant and constitutionally compelling invitation to the legislature and the executive to reform the NCC’s enrolment framework in a manner consistent with the constitutional recognition of transgender rights in the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438, and the statutory protections afforded by the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The continued statutory exclusion of transgender persons from a State-sponsored programme of national significance such as the NCC is inconsistent with the constitutional values of equality, non-discrimination, and the right to life with dignity that Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 require the State to uphold. It is submitted that the legislative and institutional reforms recommended in this article, including the amendment of Section 6 of the NCC Act, the development of NCC-specific guidelines for transgender cadets, and the establishment of outreach and support programmes, are essential steps in the fulfilment of India’s constitutional commitment to the full and equal inclusion of the transgender community in every sphere of national life.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1. What does Section 6 of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 provide, and why does it exclude transgender persons from NCC enrolment?
Section 6 of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 provides for the enrolment of students of the male sex in the Senior and Junior Divisions of the NCC, and students of the female sex in the Girls Division, subject to the satisfaction of the prescribed conditions of age, citizenship, and other criteria. The provision does not make any reference to a third gender category or to the enrolment of transgender persons, reflecting the binary conception of gender that prevailed at the time of the Act’s enactment in 1948. The Kerala High Court in Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India held that the statutory text of Section 6, as it stands, creates a binary enrolment scheme that excludes transgender persons who seek recognition as such, rather than as male or female, absent a legislative amendment introducing a third gender category or enabling transgender enrolment under the existing binary framework. The Court accordingly dismissed the petitioner’s plea for judicially ordered enrolment, finding no statutory authority to support such relief.
Q2. What legal remedy is available to a transgender person excluded from NCC enrolment under the current statutory framework?
A transgender person excluded from NCC enrolment under the current statutory framework of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 may file a writ petition before the appropriate High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the exclusion as violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, and 21, and seeking a direction to the Ministry of Defence and the NCC Directorate to consider the petitioner for enrolment consistent with the petitioner’s self-identified gender. Where the petitioner’s self-identified gender is either male or female, the Kerala High Court’s prior decisions in 2021 and March 2024 recognising the eligibility of a transwoman for enrolment as a female cadet provide a basis for similar relief in the appropriate case. A transgender person who seeks recognition as such, rather than as male or female, may also approach the National Council for Transgender Persons established under Section 16 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which is empowered to advise the Central Government on the protection of the rights of transgender persons in public institutions.
Q3. What penalty or remedy exists for discrimination against transgender persons in public services and educational establishments?
Section 3 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 prohibits discrimination against transgender persons in educational establishments and public services, including denial of admission to educational programmes, denial of access to public or private establishments, and refusal of employment or termination of employment on the ground of gender identity. Section 18 of the Transgender Persons Act, 2019 prescribes imprisonment of a minimum of six months, extendable to two years, along with a fine, for a range of offences against transgender persons including abuse, exploitation, and denial of the right to public services. Aggrieved transgender persons may also file a complaint before the designated Complaint Authority under the Transgender Persons Act, 2019 or before the National Human Rights Commission of India constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Monetary compensation may additionally be awarded by the courts for violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, following the precedent of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746.
Q4. What obligation does the State bear to promote the inclusion of transgender persons in government programmes and institutions?
The State bears positive obligations under the Constitution of India, 1950 and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 to take affirmative measures to ensure the inclusion of transgender persons in all spheres of public life, including government programmes and institutions. The Supreme Court of India, in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438, directed the Central and State governments to take specific steps to recognise the rights of transgender persons and to include them in educational programmes, government employment, and social welfare schemes. The Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV of the Constitution, while not enforceable as rights, impose a constitutional obligation upon the State to promote social justice and the elimination of inequalities, obligations that are directly applicable to the exclusion of transgender persons from the NCC. The Kerala High Court’s direction in Janvin Cleetus to the Secretaries of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Law and Justice to consider legislative and policy reform for transgender inclusion in the NCC is a direct expression of this positive constitutional obligation.
Q5. Are there any existing provisions under which a transgender person may be enrolled in the NCC under the current legal framework?
Under the current legal framework, a transgender person who self-identifies as either male or female may, in principle, be eligible for enrolment in the NCC under Section 6 of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948, consistent with that self-identified gender, following the approach adopted by the Kerala High Court in its prior decisions of 2021 and March 2024, which recognised the eligibility of a transwoman for enrolment as a female cadet under Section 6(2) and the NALSA principles. A transgender person who seeks recognition as such, rather than as male or female, does not, under the current statutory framework, have a legally enforceable right to enrolment in the NCC, as the Kerala High Court held in Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India. The enrolment of transgender persons as a distinct category requires either an amendment to Section 6 of the NCC Act or the framing of enabling rules by the Central Government under the NCC Act creating a third gender category or a Transgender Division. Absent such legislative or executive action, the statutory exclusion of transgender persons confirmed in Janvin Cleetus remains the current position of Indian law.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
– National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 (Act No. 31 of 1948), Section 6.
– Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.
– Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (Act No. 40 of 2019), Sections 3, 16, and 18.
– Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (Act No. 10 of 1994).
– National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 (Supreme Court of India).
– Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India and Others, Judgment of Justice N. Nagaresh, Kerala High Court (unreported).
– Kerala High Court, Division Bench decision on transwoman’s NCC enrolment, March 2024 (unreported).
– Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 (Supreme Court of India).
– Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Act No. 39 of 1987), Section 12.
– Law Commission of India, Report No. 245: Electoral Disqualifications (2014).
Secondary Sources
– Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts, HarperCollins, Noida, 2019.
– M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 7th edn., LexisNexis, Gurgaon, 2014.
– Arvind Narrain, ‘Transgender Rights After NALSA: A Journey Towards Inclusion’ (2015) 50(3) Economic and Political Weekly 29.
– National Legal Services Authority, Report on Access to Justice for Transgender Persons in India, NALSA, New Delhi, 2021.
– Transgender Welfare Equity and Empowerment Trust, State of Transgender Rights in India: Annual Report 2023, TWEET Foundation, Chennai, 2023.
– Human Rights Watch, Treat Us Like Human Beings: Discrimination against Sex Workers, Sexual and Gender Minorities, and People Who Use Drugs in India, HRW, New York, 2014.
– National Law School of India University, Gender Identity and the Law in India: A Doctrinal Study, NLSIU, Bengaluru, 2020.
– Siddharth Narrain, ‘Transgenders and the Law: Rights and Responsibilities’ (2019) 54(2) Economic and Political Weekly 41.
