SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
National Legal Services Authority Vs. U.O.I. (Radhakrishnan, J.)
HON'BLE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
HON'BLE A.K. SIKRI, J.
National Legal Services Authority
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 400 of 2012 with 604 of 2013, decided on 15.04.2014
Petition allowed.
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku] vuqPNsn 14] 15] 19] 21] 253 o 51 & ekSfyd vf/kdkj & laoS/kkfud xkjUVh dh O;kfIr vkSj vUrfoZ"V dk foLrkj & fyax ds vk/kkj ij lekurk vkSj Hksn-Hkko & ^^O;fDr** 'kCn iqfYyax vkSj L=hfyax rd vo:) ugha & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & blesa fgatM+s@fyax ls ijs O;fDr Hkh lfEefyr gS & ,sls O;fDr tks u rks iqfYyax gS vkSj u gh L=hfyax gS] os Hkh lHkh {ks=ksa esa fof/k ,oa lekurk ds leku laj{k.k ds gdnkj gS & ekSfyd Lora=rk iznku djus okys fo"k;ksa esa iz;qDr vfHkO;fDr;ka uiqladfyax dh gS vr% bl dkj.k ls fgtM+s@fyax ls ijs O;fDr lfEefyr gS & fyax igpku ds vk/kkj ij ukxfjdksa ds e/; HksnHkko vuuqKs; gSA ¼in la[;k 59 ls 66½
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA
2. We are, in this case, concerned with the grievances of the members of Transgender Community (for short ‘TG community’) who seek a legal declaration of their gender identity than the one assigned to them, male or female, at the time of birth and their prayer is that non-recognition of their gender identity violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hijras/Eunuchs, who also fall in that group, claim legal status as a third gender with all legal and constitutional protection.
3. The National Legal Services Authority, constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1997, to provide free legal services to the weaker and other marginalized sections of the society, has come forward to advocate their cause, by filing Writ Petition No. 400 of 2012. Poojaya Mata Nasib Kaur Ji Women Welfare Society, a registered association, has also preferred Writ Petition No. 604 of 2013, seeking similar reliefs in respect of Kinnar community, a TG community.
4. Laxmi Narayan Tripathy, claimed to be a Hijra, has also got impleaded so as to effectively put across the cause of the members of the transgender community and Tripathy’s life experiences also for recognition of their identity as a third gender, over and above male and female. Tripathy says that non-recognition of the identity of Hijras, a TG community, as a third gender, denies them the right of equality before the law and equal protection of law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and violates the rights guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner – the National Legal Services Authority, highlighted the traumatic experiences faced by the members of the TG community and submitted that every person of that community has a legal right to decide their sex orientation and to espouse and determine their identity. Learned senior counsel has submitted that since the TGs are neither treated as male or female, nor given the status of a third gender, they are being deprived of many of the rights and privileges which other persons enjoy as citizens of this country. TGs are deprived of social and cultural participation and hence restricted access to education, health care and public places which deprives them of the Constitutional guarantee of equality before law and equal protection of laws. Further, it was also pointed out that the community also faces discrimination to contest election, right to vote, employment, to get licences etc. and, in effect, treated as an outcast and untouchable. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the State cannot discriminate them on the ground of gender, violating Articles 14 to 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. Shri Anand Grover, learned senior counsel appearing for the Intervener, traced the historical background of the third gender identity in India and the position accorded to them in the Hindu Mythology, Vedic and Puranic literatures, and the prominent role played by them in the royal courts of the Islamic world etc. Reference was also made to the repealed Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 and explained the inhuman manner by which they were treated at the time of the British Colonial rule. Learned senior counsel also submitted that various Inter
Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. vs. Naz Foundation & Ors. ((2014) 1 SCC 1) Para 18
Gramophone Company of India Ltd. vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey ((1984) 2 SCC 534) Para 51
Tractor Export vs. Tarapore & Co. ((1969) 3 SCC 562) Para 51
Jolly George Varghese vs. Bank of Cochin ((1980) 2 SCC 360) Para 51
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadavalvaru vs. State of Kerala ((1973) 4 SCC 225) Para 53
Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra ((1999) 1 SCC 759) Para 53
Githa Hariharan (Ms) & Anr. vs. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. ((1999) 2 SCC 228) Para 53
People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India & Anr. ((2005) 2 SCC 436) Para 53
Vishaka & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ((1997) 6 SCC 241 = RLW 1997(3) SC 373) Para 53
Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator
Anuj Garg vs. Hotel Association of India ((2008) 3 SCC 1) Para 69
State of Karnataka vs. Rangnatha Reddy (AIR 1978 SC 215) Para 93
Sheela Barse vs. Union of India ((1986)3 SCC 596) Para 94
Mehta M.C. vs. Union of India ((1987) 4 SCC 463) Para 94
Kalidas vs. State of J&K ((1987) 3 SCC 430) Para 94
Vincent Panikurlangara vs. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 990) Para 94
Reghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1987 SC 149) Para 94
Aeltemesh Rein vs. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 1768) Para 94
Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 2039) Para 94
Kishen vs. State of Orissa (AIR 1989 SC 677) Para 94
Kehar Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1988 SC 1883) Para 94
Vikram Deo Singh Tomar vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1988 SC 1782) Para 94
Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1991 SC 420) Para 95
Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame (AIR 1990 SC 630) Para 95
Ram Sharan Autyanuprasi vs. UOI (AIR 1989 SC 549) Para 95
State of H.P. vs. Umed Ram Sharma (AIR 1986 SC 847) Para 95
Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 1992 SC 1858) Para 95
Unni Krishnan J.P. vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1993 SC 2178) Para 95
Bandhuva Mukti Morcha vs. UOI (AIR 1984 SC 802) Para 96
Sher Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC 465) Para 96
Dattatraya Govind Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1977 SC 915) Para 120
National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 1234) Para 124
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.