<p>A Supreme Court judgement last week has exposed not only the injustice still being meted out to the transgender community but also the failure of the law to help them. The Supreme Court’s NALSA judgement in 2014 declared the equality of the transgender community with others in every way. It recognised a “third gender”, and the trans persons’ fundamental rights, including the right to self-determination of gender identity. </p><p>The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act was enacted and rules were framed later to give effect to the judgement. But the court has found that the governments, both at the Centre and in the states, have not implemented the Act. It had directed the governments to recognise transgender persons as a “socially and educationally backward class” entitled to reservations, and recommended the formulation of social welfare schemes for them.</p>.<p>The court criticised the governments for “brutishly” reducing the Act and its rules to “dead letters” and adopting “a grossly apathetic attitude towards the transgender community.” It constituted an advisory committee to evaluate the implementation of the Act and recommend a “viable equal opportunity policy.” </p><p>The Union and state governments have been directed to frame their policies within three months of the submission of the report by the committee. The court’s observations and its orders were based on a petition by Jane Kaushik, a transgender woman, who allegedly faced discrimination and termination of employment at two private schools in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. </p><p>The petition brought to light several issues faced by the transgender community, such as workplace discrimination, harassment, hostile work environments, and lack of institutional support, besides non-implementation of the law and lack of access to benefits prescribed by the law. The court noted that apart from Kerala and Odisha, which implemented some provisions, most states are guilty of inaction.</p>.<p>The committee that the court has formed will hopefully look into the reasons for failure and ensure that the law and the rules are implemented. It is not just government apathy that has caused the failure. The government’s apathy is a reflection of social attitudes which are discriminatory and even hostile to the transgender community. Apart from the Supreme Court, other courts have also seen petitions from the community, seeking justice and equal treatment. </p><p>The court has given detailed guidelines on how to address the various issues the community is facing in its interactions with governments and other establishments, including educational and medical institutions. Attitudes, procedures and policies must change, and the court’s intervention was much needed.</p>
<p>A Supreme Court judgement last week has exposed not only the injustice still being meted out to the transgender community but also the failure of the law to help them. The Supreme Court’s NALSA judgement in 2014 declared the equality of the transgender community with others in every way. It recognised a “third gender”, and the trans persons’ fundamental rights, including the right to self-determination of gender identity. </p><p>The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act was enacted and rules were framed later to give effect to the judgement. But the court has found that the governments, both at the Centre and in the states, have not implemented the Act. It had directed the governments to recognise transgender persons as a “socially and educationally backward class” entitled to reservations, and recommended the formulation of social welfare schemes for them.</p>.<p>The court criticised the governments for “brutishly” reducing the Act and its rules to “dead letters” and adopting “a grossly apathetic attitude towards the transgender community.” It constituted an advisory committee to evaluate the implementation of the Act and recommend a “viable equal opportunity policy.” </p><p>The Union and state governments have been directed to frame their policies within three months of the submission of the report by the committee. The court’s observations and its orders were based on a petition by Jane Kaushik, a transgender woman, who allegedly faced discrimination and termination of employment at two private schools in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. </p><p>The petition brought to light several issues faced by the transgender community, such as workplace discrimination, harassment, hostile work environments, and lack of institutional support, besides non-implementation of the law and lack of access to benefits prescribed by the law. The court noted that apart from Kerala and Odisha, which implemented some provisions, most states are guilty of inaction.</p>.<p>The committee that the court has formed will hopefully look into the reasons for failure and ensure that the law and the rules are implemented. It is not just government apathy that has caused the failure. The government’s apathy is a reflection of social attitudes which are discriminatory and even hostile to the transgender community. Apart from the Supreme Court, other courts have also seen petitions from the community, seeking justice and equal treatment. </p><p>The court has given detailed guidelines on how to address the various issues the community is facing in its interactions with governments and other establishments, including educational and medical institutions. Attitudes, procedures and policies must change, and the court’s intervention was much needed.</p>
