IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Anjali Guru Sanjana Jaan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 104 of 2021
Decided On : 02-01-2021
Transgender - Election Nomination Rejection - Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India - Section 4(2) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, AIR 2014 SC 1863 : (2014) 5 SCC 438 - The court discussed the rights of transgender persons under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the judgment in National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India, highlighting the recognition of transgender as 'third gender', the right to self-identified gender, and the directive for legal recognition, reservation, and social welfare schemes for transgender persons.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a transgender, had her nomination form rejected for contesting the election from a ward reserved for women-general category due to the absence of reservation for transgender category in the Village Panchayat elections.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the impugned order, and accepted the petitioner's nomination form, permitting her to contest the election from the chosen ward and category.
Issues: Rejection of transgender candidate's nomination form due to absence of reservation for transgender category in the election.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the judgment in National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India to uphold the rights of transgender persons, including the recognition of 'third gender', the right to self-identified gender, and the directive for legal recognition, reservation, and social welfare schemes for transgender persons.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner's nomination form was accepted, allowing her to contest the election from the chosen ward and category.
JUDGMENT :
1. Not on the Board. Mentioned. Taken on the Production Board.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
3. The petitioner, undisputedly a transgender, is aggrieved by the rejection of her nomination form by the Returning Officer vide the impugned order dated 31.12.2020. The petitioner has decided to choose the female gender and hence, had tendered her nomination form for contesting the election from the ward reserved for women-general category. The reason for rejecting the nomination form is that the petitioner is a transgender. It is stated that there is no reservation for the transgender category in the present Village Panchayat elections.
4. The petitioner relies upon Section 4(2) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and also places reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2014 SC 1863 : (2014) 5 SCC 438.
5. The learned AGP and the learned advocate representing the State Election Commission submit that they would not argue beyond the provisions of law and would not make submissions, which are contrary to the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority (supra). It is stated that the Returning Officer is likely to be unaware of this law and must have been in a dilemma while deciding the issue of acceptance of the nomination form of the petitioner.
6. The learned advocate for the petitioner makes a categoric statement, on instructions, that this is the first occasion wherein, the petitioner has opted for a right to a self perceived gender identity and has selected a female gender for all purposes during her lifetime. He submits that the petitioner, henceforth, shall not switch over to the male gender under any circumstances anytime in future during her lifetime.
7. The Honourable Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of the rights of the transgender persons in National Legal Services Authority (supra) and has observed in paragraphs 53, 61, 66, 67 and 71 to 75 as under:-
“61. Article 14 of the Constitution of India states that the State shall not deny to “any person” equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of al
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.