The writ petition was filed by Ms. J, a transgender woman who was unlawfully terminated from two educational institutions solely due to her gender identity. She argued that the protections guaranteed under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the Rules, 2020 were not implemented, leaving transgender persons without real enforcement mechanisms. This petition also highlighted the Union Government’s failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s prior directions in Shavani Ponnusamy (2022), where it was required to create a policy framework for transgender employment inclusion.
The petitioner contended that the government’s failure to operationalize the Act violated Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. She stated that despite NALSA (2014), transgender persons remain excluded from employment, public services, and institutional protection. She asserted that her termination exemplified entrenched discrimination and a systemic vacuum in enforcement, rendering statutory rights illusory.
The Union Government maintained that the Act already provides adequate mechanisms and that no new policy was under consideration. In a Parliamentary response, the Ministry of Social Justice claimed it had received no complaints about discrimination in private sector employment, implying that further administrative action was unnecessary. This stance reflected the government’s position that statutory remedies were sufficient without additional executive measures.
The Supreme Court expressed grave disappointment at the “grossly apathetic attitude” of the Union and State Governments, observing that the Act and Rules have been “brutishly reduced to dead letters.” The bench found the continued inaction intentional and rooted in deep-seated stigma and bureaucratic resistance.
“Such an attitude cannot be reasonably considered inadvertent… it appears intentional and seems to stem from deep-rooted societal stigma and the lack of bureaucratic will.”
The Court criticized the government’s refusal to frame an employment policy despite clear judicial directions, calling it a “blatant disregard” of statutory obligations:
“Effectively, the stance of the Union Government was that there is altogether no need for any policy… Such a stance is in blatant disregard to the mandate of Chapter IV of the 2019 Act.”
It also noted the legislative omission within the Act itself: “It recognises rights without creating mechanisms for how the rights can be materialized… an instance of omissive discrimination.”
The Court highlighted that only a few states (West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Delhi; Odisha and Kerala partially) had taken steps toward compliance, reinforcing structural marginalisation.
The Court awarded compensation to the petitioner and invoked Article 142 to issue binding directions requiring full compliance within three months, directing that:
Additionally, the Court issued policy recommendations on ID card simplification, expansion of Garima Greh shelters, gender-neutral facilities, inclusive education & workplaces, third-gender recognition in forms, sensitisation programs, medical curriculum reforms, gender-diverse security screening, and a direction that no transwoman be arrested without the presence of a lady officer.
Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai
