Substantive Equality - The Legal Chamber

From Paper Rights to Real Rights: Supreme Court Orders Sweeping Reforms for Transgender Community

4Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

From Paper Rights to Real Rights: Supreme Court Orders Sweeping Reforms for Transgender Community

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, citin...

Accessibility is a Right, Not a Charity: Supreme Court’s Powerful Ruling on Disability

This Supreme Court judgment establishes a comprehensive monitoring framework, "Project Ability Empowerment," to audit state-run disability care institutions nationwide. It directs compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, emphasizing substantive equality, accessibility, and community living. The Court also mandates a review of reservation policies to include "upward movement" for meritorious disabled candidates. Facts Of The Case: The litigation originates from two consolidated petitions. The first, a 1998 Writ Petition by the Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation, sought the enforcement of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, specifically demanding the implementation of reservation for persons with visual disabilities in teaching posts. The second case began a...

Employers Must Accommodate: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Medical Disability & Jobs

This Supreme Court held that a binding Memorandum of Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which specifically provided alternate employment for colour-blind drivers, created an enforceable statutory obligation on the employer. The subsequent settlement and internal circulars could not override this specific contractual right, and the Corporation's failure to explore redeployment violated principles of natural justice and statutory compliance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant was appointed as a driver by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in 2014. During a subsequent periodic medical examination, he was found to be colour blind and declared medically unfit to continue in his role as a driver. Following this, the appellant sought alternate employment...