In a landmark ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court of India directed the Union government to form a high-level advisory committee to draft a national equal opportunity policy for transgender persons in employment. The judgment came in the case filed by Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, where the petitioner, a transgender teacher, alleged systemic discrimination in the education sector.
Background
Kaushik, who has long been a vocal advocate for transgender rights, moved the Supreme Court after being denied employment opportunities by private schools in Uttar Pradesh following her gender transition. Her counsel argued that the denial violated Articles 14, 15, 17, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, dignity, and freedom from discrimination.
The Court noted that despite the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and its accompanying Rules of 2020, there was “gross inertia” on the part of both the Centre and the States in implementing protective measures. Except for Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Delhi, most States had failed to even constitute mandatory Transgender Protection Cells.
“The 2019 Act has been brutishly reduced to a dead letter,” the bench observed, expressing deep concern over bureaucratic indifference.
Court’s Observations
The Bench, comprising Justices R. Mahadevan and another, drew parallels with earlier equality judgments like NALSA v. Union of India and Nitisha v. Union of India, emphasizing that equality must be substantive and not merely symbolic.
The judgment underscored that discrimination need not always be overt. “A rule or policy that appears neutral can perpetuate structural bias against marginalized groups,” the Court remarked, referring to indirect discrimination principles.
The Court also recognized the concept of intersectionality—how gender, caste, and disability overlap to intensify disadvantage. Justice Mahadevan noted, “Transgender persons routinely face multiple layers of exclusion economic, social, and institutional. Ignoring this is to ignore the lived realities of India’s most vulnerable citizens.”
Strongly criticizing the Ministry of Social Justice’s earlier claim that “no such policy was under consideration,” the Court said the government’s stance “betrays the spirit of the 2019 Act and reflects an unacceptable lack of empathy.”
Decision
The Supreme Court constituted an Advisory Committee headed by former Delhi High Court Judge Justice Asha Menon and including noted trans rights activists Akkai Padmashali, Grace Banu, and Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli. The Committee will also have experts in law, health, and social policy, and must submit its report within six months.
The Court directed the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to fund and support the Committee’s work, mandating an initial deposit of ₹10 lakh with the Court’s Registry. It further ordered the Centre and States to cooperate fully and provide necessary data and logistical assistance.
In a rare acknowledgment of individual injustice, the Court also ordered ₹50,000 compensation each from the Union Ministries concerned and ₹50,000 from the private school that discriminated against Kaushik.
“The State cannot be a silent spectator when the dignity and livelihood of its citizens are crushed by prejudice,” the Bench observed before concluding.
With this, the writ petition was disposed of, marking a decisive step towards India’s first structured transgender employment policy.
Case Title: Jane Kaushik v. Union of India & Others (2025)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1248
Case Type: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023
Date of Judgment: 2025
