The NALSA judgement of 2014 is the Supreme Court of India's decision of 15 April 2014 that recognised transgender people as a "third gender" and held that every person has the right to decide their own gender. A bench of Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice A.K. Sikri decided the case, formally called National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, and told the Centre and the states to give transgender people legal recognition, reservations and welfare support.
This page explains the case for students and general readers: who brought it, what was asked, what the court said, and what happened after. We quote the judgment only where we checked the words against its full text. This is general information, not legal advice.
Key takeaways
- Date and bench: 15 April 2014, Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri. The main case was Writ Petition (Civil) No. 400 of 2012.
- Petitioners: the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), and the Poojaya Mata Nasib Kaur Ji Women Welfare Society. Hijra activist Laxmi Narayan Tripathi (spelled "Tripathy" in the judgment) was impleaded to put the community's case.
- Main holding: a person's own sense of gender decides it, not a medical test. The court said insisting on surgery to declare one's gender is "immoral and illegal".
- Rights: the court read Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution to protect gender identity.
- What came next: Parliament passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act in 2019. It kept a certificate process run by the District Magistrate and gave no reservations. A 2026 amendment went further and removed the self-perceived identity right. Challenges are pending.
What is the NALSA case in short?
NALSA is the National Legal Services Authority. It is a statutory body set up under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to provide free legal help to weaker and marginalised groups. In 2012 it filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court on behalf of transgender people. The petition said that because the law knew only "male" and "female", transgender people who did not fit either were denied rights, and that this broke Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
A second petition, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 604 of 2013, came from the Poojaya Mata Nasib Kaur Ji Women Welfare Society, a registered association. The judgment says it sought similar relief for the Kinnar community. Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, who describes herself as a hijra, was impleaded "so as to effectively put across the cause of the members of the transgender community", in the judgment's words. Senior advocates Raju Ramachandran (for NALSA) and Anand Grover (for the intervenor) argued the case, according to the judgment.
The court heard both petitions together and allowed them. You can read the full text on Indian Kanoon. The law report citation is (2014) 5 SCC 438, also reported as AIR 2014 SC 1863.
If words like kinnar, hijra or aravani are new to you, our glossary of kinnar, hijra and transgender terms explains each one respectfully.
What did the petitioners ask the Supreme Court?
In plain terms, they asked for three things:
- Legal recognition. A declaration that transgender people can be recognised in law in a gender other than the one assigned at birth, including as a third gender.
- Equal rights. A finding that refusing this recognition denies them equality, dignity and freedom under the Constitution.
- Practical support. Counsel in a connected application argued that transgender people should be declared socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, so that they could get the benefits given to those classes.
The Union government told the court that an "Expert Committee on Issues relating to Transgender" was already studying the problems.
What did the NALSA judgement 2014 decide?
Both judges wrote separate opinions and then signed a joint list of directions, at paragraph 129 of the version on Indian Kanoon. In summary, the court declared that:
- Hijras and eunuchs, "apart from binary gender", must be treated as "third gender" to protect their rights under Part III of the Constitution and under laws made by Parliament and state legislatures.
- "Transgender persons' right to decide their self-identified gender is also upheld." Governments must legally recognise their gender identity "such as male, female or as third gender".
- The Centre and the states must take steps to treat them as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend reservation in admission to educational institutions and in public appointments.
- Governments must run separate HIV sero-surveillance centres for hijras and transgender people.
- Governments must seriously address problems such as fear, shame, gender dysphoria, social pressure, depression, suicidal tendencies and stigma. The court added that "any insistence for SRS for declaring one's gender is immoral and illegal".
- Governments must provide proper medical care in hospitals, and separate public toilets and other facilities.
- Governments must frame social welfare schemes.
- Governments must create public awareness so that transgender people are part of social life and "not treated as untouchables".
- Governments must take steps to restore the respect and place in society that these communities once had in India's cultural and social life.
In the next paragraph, the court asked that the Expert Committee's recommendations be examined in the light of the judgment and "implemented within six months".
Self-identification: the core idea
The most important idea in NALSA is that gender is decided by the person, not by their body or a doctor. Justice Radhakrishnan rejected the "Biological Test" from the English case Corbett v. Corbett. He wrote that the court would "follow the psyche of the person in determining sex and gender" and "prefer the 'Psychological Test' instead of 'Biological Test'". Justice Sikri added that a person has a constitutional right to be recognised as male or female after sex reassignment surgery, even without a law on it. Read together, the directions say surgery can be a choice, but it cannot be a condition.
Which constitutional rights did the court rely on?
The court read five provisions of the Constitution. This table sets out what it said about each.
| Article | What it covers | What NALSA said |
|---|---|---|
| Article 14 | Equality before the law | "Article 14 does not restrict the word 'person' and its application only to male or female." Transgender people are persons entitled to equal protection. |
| Article 15 | No discrimination on grounds such as sex | "Sex" is "not just limited to biological sex of male or female". It includes gender identity. |
| Article 16 | Equal opportunity in public employment | The same reading of "sex" applies, so gender identity is protected in government jobs. |
| Article 19(1)(a) | Freedom of speech and expression | Includes the freedom to express one's chosen gender identity through "speech, mannerism, clothing etc." |
| Article 21 | Life and personal liberty | "Recognition of one's gender identity lies at the heart of the fundamental right to dignity." |
The court also drew on international human rights law, including the Yogyakarta Principles of 2006, a set of principles on sexual orientation and gender identity drawn up by human rights experts. It said that international principles which are not inconsistent with the fundamental rights in the Constitution "must be recognized and followed".
What happened after NALSA?
NALSA set out rights and directions, but it did not create a full law. Governments and Parliament acted slowly, and in some ways in a different direction. This is a short outline. Our history of the transgender rights movement in India has the full timeline.
- September 2014: the Centre filed an application asking the court to clarify the judgment, including whether lesbian, gay and bisexual people were covered and how backward-class status would work.
- 30 June 2016: a bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and N.V. Ramana refused to modify the judgment. As reported by Bar and Bench and the Millennium Post, the bench said no clarification was needed, because the 2014 text already made clear that lesbian, gay and bisexual people were not the subject of the case.
- 5 December 2019: the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 received the President's assent.
- 27 March 2023: a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud declined to hear activist Grace Banu's application asking for NALSA's reservations to be read as horizontal. The court said she could file a fresh petition, LiveLaw reported.
- 17 October 2025: in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, the court awarded compensation to a transgender teacher who lost two school jobs, found governments had failed to put the 2019 Act into practice, and set up an advisory committee chaired by retired Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon, according to LiveLaw.
- 30 March 2026: the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 received assent. Its challenge is pending in the Supreme Court.
How is the 2019 Act different from NALSA on self-identification?
This is the question students are asked most often. The short answer: the 2019 Act used NALSA's language of self-perceived identity, but put a government certificate at the centre and tied recognition as male or female to surgery.
Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act said a person recognised as transgender "shall have a right to self-perceived gender identity". But under Sections 5 and 6, a person applies to the District Magistrate, who issues a certificate "indicating the gender of such person as transgender". Under Section 7, a person who "undergoes surgery to change gender either as a male or female" can apply for a revised certificate, with a certificate from the Medical Superintendent or Chief Medical Officer. You can read these sections in the text of the 2019 Act on Wikisource.
The steps for getting the certificate, the forms and the online portal are covered in our guide on how to apply for a transgender certificate and ID card. For the whole Act, section by section, see our analysis of the 2019 Act.
| Point | NALSA (2014) | 2019 Act | 2026 amendment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides gender | The person. Self-identified gender is upheld | A right to self-perceived identity in Section 4(2), but recognition is through a DM's certificate | The self-perceived identity right is removed |
| Options | Male, female or third gender | Certificate says "transgender". Male or female only on a revised certificate | Narrower list of covered groups |
| Surgery or medical step | Insisting on surgery is "immoral and illegal" | Surgery needed for a revised male or female certificate | The DM considers a medical board's recommendation |
| Reservations | Directed governments to extend reservation | None | None reported |
The 2026 column is a summary only. Our explainer on the 2026 amendment sets out what changed and the dates, with sources. The Supreme Court Observer case page listed the challenge as pending when we checked it, and reported that the court issued notice on 4 May 2026 without giving interim relief.
What are the main criticisms and debates?
NALSA is widely praised, but it has also been questioned, from several sides.
Reservation: vertical or horizontal?
The judgment told governments to treat transgender people as socially and educationally backward classes. Many read this as putting them in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) group, which is a vertical reservation. Grace Banu's 2023 application argued that this creates a problem. A transgender person from a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would have to choose between their caste quota and the transgender quota. A transgender person already in the OBC group would gain nothing new. She asked for a horizontal quota instead, like the one used for women and persons with disabilities. LiveLaw reported that Karnataka was the only state cited as giving a horizontal reservation, of 1 percent, and that Tamil Nadu had placed transgender people in its Most Backward Classes list. The Supreme Court did not decide the point.
Who counts as "third gender"?
The first direction names "Hijras, Eunuchs" as third gender, while the second lets anyone choose male, female or third gender. Some readers say this mixes a cultural community with a broader identity, and leaves unclear where trans men and trans women fit.
Lesbian, gay and bisexual people
Justice Sikri noted that "transgender" is sometimes used as an umbrella term, but wrote, "we are not concerned with this aforesaid wider meaning of the expression transgender." The Centre still sought clarity, and the court refused it in 2016. In a July 2016 post for the Oxford Human Rights Hub, researcher Arushi Garg argued that the government's wait for clarification had delayed implementation, and that the confusion came partly from the 2013 Koushal ruling, which had upheld Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
Implementation
The most common complaint is that the directions were not carried out in full. The 2019 Act has no reservation clause, and in 2025 the Supreme Court itself spoke of "omissive discrimination" by governments in putting the Act into practice. Our analysis of state transgender welfare boards looks at what they can and cannot do.
What did NALSA not do?
Many summaries online claim more than the judgment says. To be clear, NALSA did not:
- Decriminalise Section 377. That came later, on 6 September 2018, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. When NALSA was decided, the 2013 Koushal ruling upholding Section 377 still stood.
- Cover sexual orientation. The judgment is about gender identity. The court said in 2016 that lesbian, gay and bisexual people were not the subject of the ruling.
- Fix a reservation percentage. It told governments to extend reservation but named no number and did not say whether it should be vertical or horizontal.
- Create a law or a certificate system. It gave directions to governments. The certificate process came from the 2019 Act and the 2020 Rules.
- Decide marriage, adoption or inheritance. The court noted that such laws assume only men and women, but it did not rewrite them.
Hard words explained
- Writ petition: a case filed directly in the Supreme Court (under Article 32) or a High Court to enforce fundamental rights.
- Impleaded: added as a party to a case that is already running.
- Intervenor: a person or group allowed to join a case to present their view.
- Part III: the chapter of the Constitution that lists fundamental rights.
- SRS: sex reassignment surgery, now often called gender-affirming surgery.
- Vertical and horizontal reservation: vertical quotas are separate blocks, such as SC, ST and OBC. Horizontal quotas, such as for women, cut across those blocks.
Common questions
When was the NALSA judgement delivered?
On 15 April 2014, by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court made up of Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice A.K. Sikri.
Who filed the NALSA case?
The National Legal Services Authority filed the main petition in 2012. The Poojaya Mata Nasib Kaur Ji Women Welfare Society filed a second petition in 2013, and activist Laxmi Narayan Tripathi was impleaded to present the community's case.
What is the NALSA vs Union of India summary in one line?
The Supreme Court held that transgender people have the right to self-identify their gender as male, female or third gender, that surgery cannot be required for this, and that governments must give them equal rights, reservations and welfare support.
Does the 2019 Act follow NALSA?
Only in part. It mentioned a right to self-perceived identity, but required a District Magistrate's certificate, linked male or female recognition to surgery, and gave no reservations. The 2026 amendment removed the self-perceived identity right.
Did NALSA legalise same-sex relationships?
No. NALSA was about gender identity. Same-sex relations between consenting adults were decriminalised later, in the Navtej Singh Johar judgment of 6 September 2018.
Sources
- Indian Kanoon, National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, full judgment text, 15 April 2014
- LiveLaw, report on the NALSA judgment, 15 April 2014
- Centre for Law and Policy Research, TransLaw case page on NALSA v. Union of India
- Bar and Bench, "Transgenders will not include homosexual or bisexual persons: Supreme Court", 30 June 2016
- Millennium Post, "Lesbians, gays, bisexuals not third gender, clarifies SC", July 2016
- Oxford Human Rights Hub, Arushi Garg, "LGB, T and LGBT", 22 July 2016
- Wikisource, text of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019
- PRS Legislative Research, The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019
- LiveLaw, "Horizontal Reservation For Transgender Persons: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Clarify NALSA Judgment", 28 March 2023
- LiveLaw, report on Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, 17 October 2025
- Supreme Court Observer, "Challenge to the Transgender Persons Amendment Act, 2026", case page
Last checked on 3 November 2026. Spotted a mistake or something we should add? Tell us through our contact page.