<p>The judgement of the Supreme Court in Jane Kaushik v Union of India, delivered on October 17, 2025, by a bench consisting of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, is not only the vindication of a transgender woman’s fight against discrimination, but also a much-needed boost to the LGBTQI movement in the country.</p>.<p>It appeared that the ruling in Supriyo v Union of India, which rejected marriage equality, dealt a severe blow to the movement towards LGBTQI equality through legal process. However, the decision in Jane Kaushik has reopened a path to justice.</p>.<p>The logic and reasoning of the judgement, the important mandatory directions issued to the Union and state governments, as well as the continuing commitment to improving transgender lives, as seen in the constitution of a committee to take forward the constitutional vision of transgender rights, mark Jane Kaushik as a significant intervention by the top court.</p>.<p>The petitioner, Jane Kaushik, is a transgender woman who suffered an all-too-common experience of discrimination against the community. Jane’s application for employment as a school teacher was rejected on the grounds of her being transgender. There being no functional mechanism to deal with grievances about discrimination of this nature, she had no choice but to approach the Supreme Court for redress.</p>.<p>The Court found that there was discrimination perpetrated by the school in which Jane sought employment, as the institution did not employ her solely because she is transgender. For this act, the Court ordered the school to compensate Jane Kaushik with Rs 50,000.</p>.<p>The apex court went beyond the individual petitioner and identified structural reasons for the discrimination suffered by Jane in the inactions of the government of Uttar Pradesh and the Union government, for which they were both ordered to compensate Jane with Rs 50,000 each.</p>.<p>A key reason why transgender persons continue to experience discrimination in society lies in the grossly apathetic attitude of both the Union and state governments, which have reduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 to a dead letter. The Court characterised this State inaction as neither ‘inadvertent or accidental’, but ‘intentional’ and stemming from ‘deep-rooted societal stigma’ which results in a ‘lack of bureaucratic will to effectuate the provisions of the 2019 Act and the 2020 Rules’.</p>.<p>It is to be noted that the Act itself comes with flaws. For the Court, ‘the marginalisation of transgender persons is often perpetuated not only by overt acts of discrimination, but also through the silence and gaps in the statute, i.e., the 2019 Act.’</p>.<p>Jane Kaushik suffered discrimination during her application for employment because the state government has not bothered to implement even the flawed Act. This double failure is a form of ‘omissive discrimination’ which is violative of the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of laws to transgender persons.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court has refused to be silent in the face of this discrimination. It has taken constitutional action to both recognise and remedy gaps in the law so as to realise substantive equality, by crafting a series of innovative reliefs.</p>.<p><strong>Towards equal opportunity</strong></p>.<p>The Court has passed certain mandatory directions to both the Union and the state government to ensure that the Act translates into real protection of the community. Among the important interventions is the direction to state governments to ensure that every establishment (government or private) appoints a complaints officer to deal with grievances raised by transgender persons regarding violations of the Act.</p>.<p>The Court, however, recognises that ‘directions’ alone may have a limited impact and has constituted a committee consisting of transgender rights advocates, academics, lawyers, and government officials. The committee has been tasked with the mandate of preparing a comprehensive report that includes the formulation of a ‘viable and comprehensive equal opportunity policy for the transgender community in the arenas of education and employment’. Among the members of the Committee from Karnataka are transgender rights activist Akkai Padmashali, senior advocate Jayna Kothari, and Nithya Rajshekhar from the Centre for Law and Policy Research.</p>.<p>The committee must now initiate extensive engagement with the trans community and ensure that the concerns of every section of the community are represented in the committee’s deliberations. It is also up to the LGBTQI rights activists to engage intensively with the committee and ensure that it comes up with recommendations that can help transform the landscape for transgender rights in India. This is an opportunity that must not be missed.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a Bengaluru- based lawyer)</em></p><p> <em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
<p>The judgement of the Supreme Court in Jane Kaushik v Union of India, delivered on October 17, 2025, by a bench consisting of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, is not only the vindication of a transgender woman’s fight against discrimination, but also a much-needed boost to the LGBTQI movement in the country.</p>.<p>It appeared that the ruling in Supriyo v Union of India, which rejected marriage equality, dealt a severe blow to the movement towards LGBTQI equality through legal process. However, the decision in Jane Kaushik has reopened a path to justice.</p>.<p>The logic and reasoning of the judgement, the important mandatory directions issued to the Union and state governments, as well as the continuing commitment to improving transgender lives, as seen in the constitution of a committee to take forward the constitutional vision of transgender rights, mark Jane Kaushik as a significant intervention by the top court.</p>.<p>The petitioner, Jane Kaushik, is a transgender woman who suffered an all-too-common experience of discrimination against the community. Jane’s application for employment as a school teacher was rejected on the grounds of her being transgender. There being no functional mechanism to deal with grievances about discrimination of this nature, she had no choice but to approach the Supreme Court for redress.</p>.<p>The Court found that there was discrimination perpetrated by the school in which Jane sought employment, as the institution did not employ her solely because she is transgender. For this act, the Court ordered the school to compensate Jane Kaushik with Rs 50,000.</p>.<p>The apex court went beyond the individual petitioner and identified structural reasons for the discrimination suffered by Jane in the inactions of the government of Uttar Pradesh and the Union government, for which they were both ordered to compensate Jane with Rs 50,000 each.</p>.<p>A key reason why transgender persons continue to experience discrimination in society lies in the grossly apathetic attitude of both the Union and state governments, which have reduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 to a dead letter. The Court characterised this State inaction as neither ‘inadvertent or accidental’, but ‘intentional’ and stemming from ‘deep-rooted societal stigma’ which results in a ‘lack of bureaucratic will to effectuate the provisions of the 2019 Act and the 2020 Rules’.</p>.<p>It is to be noted that the Act itself comes with flaws. For the Court, ‘the marginalisation of transgender persons is often perpetuated not only by overt acts of discrimination, but also through the silence and gaps in the statute, i.e., the 2019 Act.’</p>.<p>Jane Kaushik suffered discrimination during her application for employment because the state government has not bothered to implement even the flawed Act. This double failure is a form of ‘omissive discrimination’ which is violative of the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of laws to transgender persons.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court has refused to be silent in the face of this discrimination. It has taken constitutional action to both recognise and remedy gaps in the law so as to realise substantive equality, by crafting a series of innovative reliefs.</p>.<p><strong>Towards equal opportunity</strong></p>.<p>The Court has passed certain mandatory directions to both the Union and the state government to ensure that the Act translates into real protection of the community. Among the important interventions is the direction to state governments to ensure that every establishment (government or private) appoints a complaints officer to deal with grievances raised by transgender persons regarding violations of the Act.</p>.<p>The Court, however, recognises that ‘directions’ alone may have a limited impact and has constituted a committee consisting of transgender rights advocates, academics, lawyers, and government officials. The committee has been tasked with the mandate of preparing a comprehensive report that includes the formulation of a ‘viable and comprehensive equal opportunity policy for the transgender community in the arenas of education and employment’. Among the members of the Committee from Karnataka are transgender rights activist Akkai Padmashali, senior advocate Jayna Kothari, and Nithya Rajshekhar from the Centre for Law and Policy Research.</p>.<p>The committee must now initiate extensive engagement with the trans community and ensure that the concerns of every section of the community are represented in the committee’s deliberations. It is also up to the LGBTQI rights activists to engage intensively with the committee and ensure that it comes up with recommendations that can help transform the landscape for transgender rights in India. This is an opportunity that must not be missed.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a Bengaluru- based lawyer)</em></p><p> <em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
