Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 1666
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
National Legal Services Authority - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Interlocutory Application No. 4 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 400 of 2012
Decided on : 30-06-2016
For the Petitioner:Maninder Singh, ASG., D.L. Chidananda, Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Nalin K., Prabhas Bajaj, D.S. Mahra, Advocate, Raju Ramchandran, Sr. Adv., Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Mythili, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Anand Grover, Sr. Adv., Anil Shrivastav, Anip Sachthey, Jugal Kishore Gilda, Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Linthoingambi Thongam, Naresh Kumar, I.H. Issac H., Ashok Kumar Singh, B. Balaji, D.S. Mahra, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Jogy Scaria, Mishra Saurabh, P.V. Yogeswaran, Rahul Kaushik, Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Ms. Shilpi Satya Priya Satyam, Devender Kr. Saini, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Sunil Fernandes, V.G. Pragasam, Prabu Ramasubramanian, V.N. Raghupathy, Parikshit P. Angadi, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Yusuf Khan, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, M/s Arputham Aruna & Co., Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Navnit Kumar, M/s Corporate Law Group, K.V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, Ashok Kumar Juneja, Chand Qureshi, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Edward Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang Michael, Suryanarayana Singh, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Ms. S. Pathak, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, S.S. Shamshery, Amit Sharma, Prateek Yadav, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Soumik Ghosal, Parijat Sinha, Ms. Tripti Tandon, Ms. Amritananda Chakravorty, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Advocates.
The court clarified the scope of its previous judgment on transgender rights, explicitly excluding Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual individuals.
Headnote:
Clarification - Transgender Rights - The court clarified that its previous judgment related only to transgender individuals, not including Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual individuals.
Fact of the Case:
The court was asked for clarification regarding the scope of its previous judgment on transgender rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the previous judgment related only to transgender individuals and did not include Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual individuals.
Issues: Clarification of the scope of the previous judgment
Ratio Decidendi: The court's previous judgment explicitly clarified the scope of its application to transgender individuals only.
Final Decision: The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
ORDER :
1. It is stated by Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, that in this application, clarification is sought to the effect that the judgment dated 15.04.2014 related to only transgender, i.e., those commonly known as Hijras/Eunuchs and did not include Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual.
2. No such clarification was needed as this aspect is amply clarified in paragraphs 107 and 109 and other parts of the judgment.
3. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
