Back
Allahabad HC: Transgenders Can't Claim Legal Turf for 'Badhai' Gifts – Custom Can't Trump Law
In a stark rejection of longstanding community traditions, the 's has ruled that transgender persons, often referred to as Kinnars, hold to collect badhai – the customary gifts or cash offered during auspicious occasions like births and weddings. On , Justices Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai dismissed a by Rekha Devi from Gonda district, who sought police protection and demarcation of her collection "territory" amid violent turf wars within her community (Neutral Citation: ).
The decision underscores that courts won't rubber-stamp practices resembling extortion, even if rooted in custom, without statutory backing.
Turf Wars Turn Bloody: The Spark in Gonda
Rekha Devi, residing under Colonelganj Police Station in Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, described a gritty reality for her Kinnar community. For years, she and others have claimed jajmani or customary rights to solicit badhai within defined areas. But as other Kinnars from the district encroached – stretching from Kati ka Pul in Jarwal town to Ghaghra Ghat and Saryu Bridge – disputes escalated into murderous assaults and grievous injuries .
Fearing for her safety, Devi invoked Articles 14 (equality), 19 (occupational freedom), and 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution. She urged the court to direct authorities to formally map her jurisdiction, preventing future clashes. Her counsel, including and , argued the practice's decades-long continuity had evolved into a protectable .
Petitioner's Customary Claim vs. State's Silence
Devi's team painted badhai as a harmless tradition, integral to Kinnar livelihood and culture, now threatened by internal rivalries. They stressed the community's vulnerability, positioning the plea as essential for violence-free exercise of fundamental rights.
The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by the Standing Counsel, barely contested – the court heard only the petitioner's side before dispensing with notice to private respondents. No robust defense emerged for the state, but the bench seized the opportunity to address broader implications.
No Custom Overrides Law: Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning
The division bench cut straight to the core: Does badhai collection qualify as a ? Can courts enforce territorial monopolies? No and no , they declared.
Drawing no direct precedents but leaning on bedrock principles, the judges emphasized that unauthorized extraction of money, akin to tax or cess, demands legal authority . Custom alone doesn't suffice under 's . They flagged risks: legitimizing one group's claim could embolden "gangs" nationwide, turning courts into enablers of extortion – now punishable under the .
The bench referenced the , which empowers self-determined gender identity but silent on economic rights like badhai . A 2026 bill in Parliament, tweaking gender definitions, offered no solace either. As media reports noted post-judgment, this aligns with ongoing debates over transgender protections amid evolving laws.
Punchy Quotes That Pack a Punch
The judgment brims with unequivocal language:
"Needless to say there is no legitimate or legal backing permitting any person or individual from collecting / extracting any money, tax, fee or cess from any individual except in accordance with law."
"Such rights as sought by the petitioner are not recognized by law and accordingly the courts in its power underof the Constitution of India cannot legitimise the acts of the petitioner without there being any backing of law."
"Extraction of money from any individual willfully or otherwise cannot be permitted to be made and any citizen of this country can be directed to pay only such amounts of tax, cess or fee which can be legitimately extracted from such individuals in accordance with law."
"In case any indulgence is shown in the respect of the petitioner there may be several other persons / gangs which may be operating and making illegal extraction / extortion from individual and such illegal extraction has never been sanctioned by law in this country and such extraction is an offence under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita."
These observations, echoed across legal news outlets, highlight the judiciary's refusal to blur lines between tradition and crime.
Dismissed: A Line in the Sand for Future Claims
"The
is
and is accordingly dismissed."
No interim relief, no demarcation – just finality.
Practically, this shields residents from coerced payments during joyous moments, potentially curbing community violence through deterrence rather than division. For Kinnars, it signals a pivot: seek livelihoods backed by law, not custom. Future cases may test if welfare schemes or reservations under the 2019 Act can fill economic gaps, especially with the 2026 amendments looming.
The ruling reinforces that constitutional protections don't extend to unlawful gains , a cautionary tale for all customary practices teetering on illegality.
