This Supreme Court judgment affirms that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, read with Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, imposes horizontal obligations on both State and private establishments to prevent discrimination against transgender persons. The Court underscores the State’s positive duty to ensure reasonable accommodation, effective grievance redressal, and substantive equality, holding that legislative and administrative inaction constitutes discriminatory omission.
Facts Of The Case:
The petitioner, Jane Kaushik, a transgender woman and trained teacher, faced alleged discrimination and termination from two private schools within a year. She was first appointed by the First School in November 2022 but was forced to resign after eight days, citing harassment and her transgender identity. The school initially cited poor performance, then later referred to “student interest,” and eventually threatened defamation. After her termination, the school agreed to rehire her subject to an assessment test, which she did not attend, citing mental health issues, after which the vacancy was filled. Separately, in July 2023, the Second School issued her an offer letter for a teaching position but denied her employment upon learning of her transgender identity during document verification, refusing her entry without a formal termination letter. Ms. Kaushik approached various fora, including the National Commission for Women and the National Council for Transgender Persons, but found no effective grievance redressal, compelling her to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking enforcement of her fundamental rights against discrimination.
Procedural History:
Before approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32, the petitioner, Jane Kaushik, pursued multiple administrative and quasi-judicial avenues for redressal without success. Following her termination from the First School, the National Commission for Women (NCW) took suo motu cognizance and constituted an Inquiry Committee, which ultimately concluded that no discrimination was made out. The petitioner also filed a criminal complaint with the police, approached the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP) as mandated by the 2019 Act, and lodged a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The NCTP provided no response, and the NHRC closed the complaint, noting the NCW was already seized of the matter. Having exhausted these ineffective statutory grievance mechanisms, the petitioner invoked the Supreme Court’s original writ jurisdiction, leading to the present judgment.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made extensive observations, expressing deep concern over the systemic failure to implement the 2019 Act and protect transgender rights. It held that the right to equality under Articles 14 and 15 includes a positive obligation on the State and private establishments to provide reasonable accommodation for transgender persons, a facet of substantive equality. The Court found that legislative and administrative omission—such as the failure to frame rules, appoint complaint officers, and create grievance mechanisms—itself constitutes discriminatory inaction (“omissive discrimination”) violating fundamental rights. It affirmed the horizontal application of fundamental rights through the 2019 Act, making non-state actors like private schools duty-bound to prevent discrimination. The Court criticized the Union and State governments for their apathy and lethargy, which rendered the statutory protections ineffective, and emphasized the need for transformative measures, including inclusive policies and structural changes, to ensure the dignity and inclusion of the transgender community.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the writ petition. It held that the Second School discriminated against the petitioner based on her gender identity and directed it to pay compensation of ₹50,000. While not finding sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination by the First School, the Court held the Union of India and the concerned State governments liable for legislative and administrative omission in failing to implement the 2019 Act, directing them to pay ₹50,000 each as compensation. Furthermore, the Court issued binding directions for establishing Welfare Boards, Transgender Protection Cells, complaint officers, and a nationwide helpline within three months. It also constituted an Advisory Committee to draft a comprehensive equal opportunity policy and address gaps in the law, mandating the Union to formulate a policy based on its report within a stipulated timeframe.
Case Details:
Case Title: Jane Kaushik Versus Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1248 Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023 Date of Judgment: October 17, 2025 Judges/Justices: Justice J.B. PARDIWALA & Justice R. MAHADEVAN