Introduction:

In S Sushma & Anr. v. Director General of Police & Others (W.P. 7284/2021), a petitioners’ writ decided by Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court, the Court criticised the Tamil Nadu Government for repeatedly seeking adjournments instead of finalising a welfare policy for the LGBTQIA+ community. The petitioners, represented by legal advocates and activists, pressed the State to draft and implement a comprehensive policy, either a unified one or separate frameworks for transgender/intersex and LGBQA persons. Despite multiple courteous summons since June 2021—covering protections against conversion therapy, workplace inclusion, gender identity rights, and more—the State informed the Court that stakeholder consultations required additional time. At the hearing on Monday, June 10, 2025, the Court expressed its disappointment in blunt terms: the government prioritised other matters, chilling the momentum of advocates and breaching an important moral and administrative duty. Justice Venkatesh, recalling earlier instructions to the State’s Additional Advocate General, emphasised that Tamil Nadu had a historic opportunity to set a governance precedent, but was stalling unjustifiably. The Court refrained from issuing coercive orders—fearing that doing so would provoke an inevitable appeal to the Supreme Court and stall all progress. The matter has been adjourned to 21st July 2025, with a stern expectation that the State will finalise its policy by that date.

Arguments of the Petitioners (S Sushma & Co.):

The petitioners—a lesbian couple and allied activists—argued that despite the landmark S Sushma judgment (2021), which had laid down comprehensive interim directives for LGBTQIA+ welfare, the State had yet to enshrine those rights into enforceable policy. They pressed for clarity and a binding commitment—either via a single, consolidated policy, or separate provisions tailored respectively to transgender/intersex persons and LGBQA individuals. Their plea emphasised that legal pronouncements mean little without institutional structures, resource allocations, anti-discrimination mandates, health and education measures, and consultation processes. Delay of many months—even years—has eroded trust and dampened civic enthusiasm. By reinstating momentum, they reminded the Court that other states would watch Tamil Nadu’s lead, and that concrete policy measures would foster dignity, affirm fundamental rights and reduce legal ambiguities and personal hardships.

Arguments of the Respondent (State Government):

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, pleaded for further time on grounds of necessary consultation. They cited the complexity of stakeholder input, including comments from NGOs, medical boards, educational institutions, and community groups. The planning process required translation into Tamil for broader community engagement. The State suggested that divergent interests—namely between the transgender/intersex communities and LGBQA—might merit separate policy strands, and thus required careful drafting. The government assured the Court that it remained committed to the cause: prior policy drafts had been circulated and advisory committees constituted. But for accurate, inclusive policy-making in a multicultural and multilingual democracy, the process needed delay and iteration, not haste.

Court’s Observations & Judgment:

Justice Venkatesh unequivocally rebuked the “adjournment habitus,” noting that the administration had proven capable of passing General Orders overnight or challenging interlocutory rulings at the Supreme Court in the exponential timeframe—“but not for this.” By contrast, progressive implementation of human rights policies had languished for years, leaving thousands without safeguards. The bench reminded that Tamil Nadu’s interim compliance with S Sushma—banning conversion therapy, gender sensitivity in schools, police, hospitals—had put it at the national vanguard. Now, the State risked squandering its moral authority.

That said, the Court declined to impose coercive directional orders, citing legal strategy. A writ mandamus against policy formation might attract an immediate stay from India’s top Court, thereby holding back finalisation indefinitely. Instead, the Court adopted a stance of persuasive urgency: adjourn to 21 July 2025, with an announcement that the policy must be completed by then—no further adjournment.

The Court reiterated that a welfare state must prioritise policies that protect marginalised lives—particularly when institutional confidence is fragile. “[…] It’s a big opportunity for the State […] The only hope is that the govt will do it and the atmosphere prevailing in the State is conducive for it.”