The Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concerns that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act of 2019 and its associated rules have been reduced to "dead letters" due to a "grossly apathetic attitude" from both the Union Government and the States. In response to the continued discrimination and marginalization faced by the transgender community, the court has appointed a committee to frame job and education policies.
The bench, led by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, lamented the lack of implementation of measures designed to prevent discrimination against transgender individuals in both public and private spheres. They noted that despite the 2014 NALSA (National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India) judgment, which legally recognized transgender people as a "third gender" and upheld their fundamental rights, the community continues to face significant barriers. These barriers include scarcity of healthcare, limited economic opportunities, and non-inclusive educational policies.
To address these systemic issues, the Supreme Court has constituted a committee headed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon. The committee's mandate is to formulate an equal opportunity policy for transgender individuals, and to propose measures for inclusive medical care and protection for gender non-conforming and gender-diverse persons. The committee will also study the subject and propose the Equal Opportunity Policy.
The committee will comprise transgender activists Grace Banu and Akai Padmashali, CLPR Bengaluru member Gaurav Mandal, and Dr. Sanjay Sharma from the Association for Transgender Health in India. Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari has been appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court. The court has directed that all institutions without their own policies should adhere to the guidelines framed by the committee until the Union government formulates a comprehensive national policy. The Supreme Court has asked the committee to frame a model equal opportunity policy within six months, identify gaps in the 2019 Act and Rules, and propose corrective measures. It has also been tasked with suggesting ways to increase transgender participation in workplaces and public spaces.
The Supreme Court's ruling came in response to a plea filed by a transgender woman, Jane Kaushik, whose appointment as a teacher was terminated by two private schools due to her gender identity. The court awarded compensation to Kaushik for the loss she faced due to her termination, taking serious cognizance of the discriminatory actions of the schools. The court condemned the actions of the two schools, one in Uttar Pradesh that expelled Kaushik and another in Gujarat that later denied her a job.
The court also issued several directions to strengthen the protection of transgender persons nationwide. These include directing every State and Union Territory to designate an appellate authority for transgender persons to appeal decisions of the District Magistrate, and to create a welfare board for transgender persons to protect their rights and interests, and facilitate access to schemes and welfare measures. The court directed the setting up of a Transgender Protection Cell under the charge of the District Magistrate in each district and under the Director General of Police in each state and UT to monitor the prosecution of cases of offences against transgender persons. Additionally, the Union of India and all states must ensure strict compliance with these directions within three months. A dedicated nationwide toll-free helpline number must also be established to address violations of the 2019 law.
