An advisory committee constituted by the Supreme Court to facilitate policy recommendations lacks adjudicatory powers, and a High Court errs in disposing of a writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach such a committee instead of exercising its own duty to adjudicate the grievances.

O R D E R

1. The petitioner went before the High Court by way of a writ petition and prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) notifications for separate vacancies for CHANDRESH Date: 2026.04.11

13:04:53 IST Reason: 1 transgender persons in teaching positions in schools, (ii) necessary relaxations in minimum qualifications and age for transgender persons in teaching positions in schools, (iii) framing of a policy for recruitment of transgender persons in all appointments for the Government of NCT of Delhi, (iv) implementation of the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 ("TPPR Act") and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 ("TPPR Rules") in the Government of NCT of Delhi, (v) permitting the petitioner to amend her registrations details to reflect her legal gender and name on the Online Application Registration System of the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (vi) directing the Government of NCT of Delhi to consider the application of the petitioner for any vacancy to a teaching position notified or to be notified by the Government, irrespective of gender, (vii) directing the Government of NCT of Delhi to extend reservation to transgender persons in all public appointments by the Government.

2. We must note at the outset that in 2023, the petitioner had also approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner prayed for reliefs pertaining to the framing of an equal opportunity policy, the implementation of various provisions of the TPPR Act and TPPR Rules including various other reliefs in the specific facts of her case. While dealing with the said petition, this Court delivered the judgment titled Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, reported in 2026 (1) SCC 336, wherein several binding directions relating to the implementation of the TPPR Act and TPPR Rules, respectively were issued.

3. In addition to the binding directions, referred to above, this Court also formed an Advisory Committee chaired by Justice (Retd.) Ms. Asha Menon to conduct an in-depth study of and provide recommendations on the following points:

(a) Formulation of an Equal Opportunity Policy;

(b) Study of the TPPR Act and TPPR Rules to suggest measures to address lacuna therein;

(c) Reasonable Accommodation for transgender persons in public spaces;

(d) Grievance Redressal Mechanism;

(e) Gender and Name Change;

(f) Inclusive Medical Care for Transgender and Gender Diverse Persons;

(g) Protections for Gender Non-Conforming and Gender Diverse Persons.

4. The Advisory Committee is currently in the process of working on the aspects broadly delineated in their remit including the formulation of a model equal opportunity policy in employment and education.

5. Several issues raised by the petitioner before the High Court have already been addressed by this Court exhaustively in Jane Kaushik (supra) Therefore, prima facie, we are of the view that the only issue which remains to be looked into pertains to the lack of notifications for separate vacancies for transgender persons in public appointments and relaxation in minimum requirements of employment by the Government of NCT of Delhi, which according to the petitioner, are coming in her way while applying for vacancies being notified for teaching positions in Delhi.

6. The operative portion of the impugned judgment reads thus:

“6. Particularly, the Hon'ble Supreme Co para 207 of the judgement in. Jane Kaushik (supra) has permitted the Advisory Committee constituted by it to consider even such issues and suggestions which may be beyon