1. Transgender person — Termination and denial of employment — Alleged discrimination based on gender identity — Writ petition under Article 32 — Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1830
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA & R. MAHADEVAN, JJ. ,
Jane Kaushik – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023
Decided on : 17-10-2025
Important Points
The judgment highlights the obligation of state and private entities to prevent discrimination and implement reasonable accommodations for transgender persons, emphasizing their right to dignity and equality under the law.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Transgender Rights and Discrimination
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 - Provisions for prohibition against discrimination, grievance redressal, and welfare measures for transgender persons - The Act aims to safeguard the rights and ensure inclusion of transgender persons in various spheres of life, including education and employment. (Paras 2, 8, 13, and 146)
(B) Employment Discrimination and Reasonable Accommodation - Obligation of public and private establishments to comply with non-discrimination provisions under the Act - The court emphasized the need for reasonable accommodations within employment settings and recognized the layered systemic discrimination faced by the transgender community. (Paras 2, 130, and 145)
(C) Right to Appeal and Grievance Mechanisms - Due to the ineffective implementation of the grievance redressal mechanisms provided under the Act, the court directed the establishment of comprehensive policies to ensure accessibility and protection against discrimination for transgender individuals. (Paras 199 and 204)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a transgender woman, alleged that she faced discrimination leading to her termination from two schools based on her gender identity, leading to a Writ Petition for enforcement of her rights under the 2019 Act. The court looked into the systemic barriers faced by the transgender community in employment and education settings.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the inaction of the state authorities contributed to the discrimination faced by the Petitioner and that compensation should be awarded for the loss suffered due to both private actors' and state inaction.
Issues: The court addressed whether the state failed to act on its obligations under the 2019 Act, whether private schools discriminated against the Petitioner, and the need for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Judgment reiterated that the State has a responsibility to ensure the effective implementation of the rights of marginalized communities and that rights enshrined in law must be matched by accessible and enforceable remedies.
Result: Compensation of Rs 50,000 was directed to be paid to the Petitioner by each of the schools (4 in total) and the Union of India, alongside directions for the establishment of a committee to look into the grievances and welfare of the transgender community.
(B) Employment Discrimination and Reasonable Accommodation - Obligation of public and private establishments to comply with non-discrimination provisions under the Act - The court emphasized the need for reasonable accommodations within employment settings and recognized the layered systemic discrimination faced by the transgender community. (Paras 2, 130, and 145)
(C) Right to Appeal and Grievance Mechanisms - Due to the ineffective implementation of the grievance redressal mechanisms provided under the Act, the court directed the establishment of comprehensive policies to ensure accessibility and protection against discrimination for transgender individuals. (Paras 199 and 204)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a transgender woman, alleged that she faced discrimination leading to her termination from two schools based on her gender identity, leading to a Writ Petition for enforcement of her rights under the 2019 Act. The court looked into the systemic barriers faced by the transgender community in employment and education settings.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the inaction of the state authorities contributed to the discrimination faced by the Petitioner and that compensation should be awarded for the loss suffered due to both private actors' and state inaction.
Issues: The court addressed whether the state failed to act on its obligations under the 2019 Act, whether private schools discriminated against the Petitioner, and the need for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Judgment reiterated that the State has a responsibility to ensure the effective implementation of the rights of marginalized communities and that rights enshrined in law must be matched by accessible and enforceable remedies.
Result: Compensation of Rs 50,000 was directed to be paid to the Petitioner by each of the schools (4 in total) and the Union of India, alongside directions for the establishment of a committee to look into the grievances and welfare of the transgender community.
Judgement Key Points
Ratio Decidendi
- State inaction/omissions under 2019 Act violated positive obligations, contributing to petitioner's discrimination; compensation of Rs 50,000 each from respondents 1, 2, 3.[10][21][29][35][41][126][127][159][177][214]
- Second School (respondent 4) discriminated in recruitment/employment on gender identity; compensation of Rs 50,000 payable.[9][12][13][139][160][161][162][177][214]
- First School (respondent 5) did not intentionally discriminate; no compensation but non-compliance noted.[7][152][154][156][157]
- Establishments must designate complaint officers (Section 11, Rule 13); States ensure compliance.[142][158][199(iv)]
- Directions under Article 142: designate appellate authorities, Welfare Boards, Protection Cells, SHRC for objections, national helpline; comply in 3 months.[199][200]
Obiter Dicta
- Transgender rights statutory but unrealized due to state/private apathy; 2019 Act/Rules dead letters.[1][2][35][39][41][149]
- Reasonable accommodation implicit positive duty for substantive equality in 2019 Act.[43][47][51][54]
- Legislative omissions (absolute/relative) discriminatory under Article 14.[66][115][120][125][130]
- Substantive equality four-dimensional: redress disadvantage, stigma/sterotypes, participation/voice, accommodate difference.[69][70][72][73][78][84][87][97]
- Indirect discrimination from facially neutral rules exacerbating disadvantage.[80][82][83]
- Stereotypes/stigma impermissible for laws/policies/practices.[87][90][91][96]
- Transgender barriers: surveillance/hyper-vigilance, employment, IDs/documents, education, social/political exclusion.[179][180][186][188][193][195]
- Suggestions: simplify IDs, fund Garima Grehs, gender-neutral facilities, inclusive curricula/medical reforms, sensitisation.[198] (!) (!) (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- employment law
- statutory law
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Adv. Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, AOR Mr. Priyesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sumeet Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Santosh Kr., Adv. Mr. Durga Dutt, Adv. Mr. Noor Rampal, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. B.l.n.shivani, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Srikant Singh, Adv. Mr. Akash Gothwal, Adv. Mr. Suraj Pal Singh Mina, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Ms. Aastha Mehta, Adv. Ms. Prerana Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Prina Sharma, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mr. Mohit Negi, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Adv. Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, AOR Mr. Priyesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sumeet Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Santosh Kr., Adv. Mr. Durga Dutt, Adv. Mr. Noor Rampal, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. B.l.n.shivani, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Srikant Singh, Adv. Mr. Akash Gothwal, Adv. Mr. Suraj Pal Singh Mina, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Ms. Aastha Mehta, Adv. Ms. Prerana Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Prina Sharma, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mr. Mohit Negi, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner — Violation of fundamental rights and statutory duties — State's failure to implement rules. Respondents — Termination based on performance — Private employment contracts not amenable to writ jurisdiction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
3. State's failure to implement the 2019 Act and 2020 Rules — Reasonable accommodation as a tool for substantive equality — Omissive discrimination through administrative inaction. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 )
4. Reasonable accommodation is a positive obligation under Article 14 and the 2019 Act — Administrative omission to implement statutory safeguards constitutes a violation of the right against discrimination. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 )
5. Compensation awarded to petitioner — Directions to establish Welfare Boards, Protection Cells, and a nation-wide helpline — Formation of an Advisory Committee for policy formulation. (Para 176 , 177 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219 )
6. Does the right to equality include a right to reasonable accommodation for transgender persons?
Yes. Reasonable accommodation is a tool for substantive equality and a positive obligation under Article 14 and the 2019 Act, ensuring that marginalized individuals can participate in society on equal terms. (Para 43 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 )
7. Can the failure of the State to implement statutory mechanisms be considered a form of discrimination?
Yes. Omission can be discriminatory where there is a duty to act. Administrative inaction or privileged omission that prevents the realization of statutory rights constitutes a violation of the right against discrimination. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 120 , 121 , 125 )
8. Do fundamental rights against discrimination apply to private establishments under the 2019 Act?
Yes. The 2019 Act manifests the indirect horizontal application of fundamental rights by imposing enforceable duties on private establishments to prevent discrimination in employment, education, and healthcare. (Para 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 )
9. When can the court award monetary compensation for the violation of fundamental rights by private parties?
Compensation may be awarded in appropriate cases where the infringement is gross, patent, and incontrovertible, and where the victim is from a disadvantaged section and no other effective remedy is available. (Para 165 , 168 , 169 , 172 , 174 , 175 )
JUDGMENT :
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-
| INDEX | |
| A. | FACTUAL MATRIX |
| B. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES. |
| I. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER |
| II. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 (“THE FIRST SCHOOL”) |
| III. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 (“THE SECOND SCHOOL”) |
| C. | ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION |
| D. | ANALYSIS |
| I. | OPENING REMARKS |
| II. | RETHINKING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE 2019 ACT |
| a. | Evolution of Canadian Jurisprudence. |
| b. | A Reading of Reasonable Accommodation for Gender Dysphoria in the United States of America |
| c. | EU on Reasonable Accommodation |
| III. | ADDRESSING OMISSION IN DISCRIMINATION LAW |
| a. | A Four-Dimensional Approach to Address Substantial Equality: Situating ‘Discrimination’ in Omissive Discrimination |
| i. | Redressing disadvantage |
| ii. | Addressing stigma and stereotypes |
| iii. | Enhancement of voice and participation. |
| iv. | Accommodating Difference to Achieve Structural Changes |
| b. | Omission by Legislature resulting in violation of the Right against Discrimination |
| IV. | LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND MANIFESTATION OF HORIZONTAL APPLICATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS |
| a. | Indirect Horizontal Application by the Means of the 2019 Act |
| b. | The Statutory Framework at Play |
| c. | The Discrimination Faced by the Petitioner at the end of the First School and the Second School. |
| V. | SHORTCOMINGS OF THE 2019 ACT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE LETHARGY |
| a. | Problems Faced by the Transgender Community in Day-to-Day Life |
| i. | Surveillance and Hyper-Vigilance |
| E. | SOME MEANINGFUL SUGGESTIONS |
| F. | DIRECTIONS |
| G. | ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY |
| H. | CONCLUSION |
1. It has been more than half a decade since the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights Act), 2019 (the “2019 Act”), came to be enacted and it has been more than a decade since this Court rendered the judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (“NALSA”), reported in (2014) 5 SCC 438. However, the question whether the transgender persons are living a life with dignity continues to beg for an answer. One may get to read a lot about their rights in the statute books, but the reality is that these rights remain only an empty formality.
2. There is no gainsaying that the Union of India and the States need to do a lot more to create mechanisms for the transgender persons to translate their rights into reality. The lethargy exhibited on part of the concerned Government has also led the non-state establishments to put the compliance of the 2019 Act and of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 (the “2020 Rules”) in a cold freeze. This abeyance of rights is a matter of serious concern. The community continues to face discrimination and marginalization, with a scarcity of healthcare, economic opportunities and non-inclusive educational policies adding to their struggles. In 2014, this Court in NALSA (supra) recognized transgender people as the “Third Gender”, upholding their fundamental rights to equality and dignity. In furtherance of NALSA (supra), the 2019 Act was enacted with a view to provide a legal framework for the recognition and protection of the rights of transgender people in India.
3. Transgender persons have found mention in the ancient history of the country with references to a “Third Sex” (Tritiya Prakriti) in Vedic and Puranik literature and characters like ‘Mohini’ in Hindu mythology as well as periods of imperial recognition. However, with the onset of colonial- era, the history of the transgender community in India became rather sour: it comprised of centuries of criminalization, followed by institutionalized marginalization. Despite this, we must also acknowledge that t
