Can Customary Practice Become a Legal Right? Allahabad High Court Says No, Dismisses Plea on Badhai Collection

The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no fundamental or legal right to collect badhai or assert territorial “jajmani” claims, dismissing a petition filed by a member of the transgender community seeking protection and demarcation of such rights.

The bench of Justices Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai was dealing with a plea by Rekha Devi, a resident of Gonda district, who claimed that members of the Kinnar community have historically collected badhai (customary offerings given during auspicious occasions) within defined territorial limits.

According to the petitioner, disputes had arisen between different groups within the community due to overlapping territorial claims. These conflicts, she submitted, had escalated into violent confrontations, including instances of grievous assaults. In this backdrop, the petitioner sought protection of her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that she should be allowed to carry out the collection of badhai without fear of violence.

The plea specifically requested the court to direct authorities to demarcate and declare a fixed territorial jurisdiction for her group, extending from Kati ka Pul in Jarwal town to Ghaghra Ghat and up to Saryu Bridge in Colonelganj, in order to prevent future disputes.

Examining the issue, court framed two key questions: whether the petitioner had any enforceable fundamental right to collect badhai/jajmani, and whether the court could grant relief that would effectively legitimise such a practice.

Rejecting the petitioner’s contention that long-standing practice had crystallised into a customary right, the bench held that there is no legal framework that recognises or permits the collection of money from individuals except in accordance with law. Court observed that any extraction of money, whether voluntary or otherwise, must have statutory backing and cannot be justified merely on the basis of tradition.

The bench further clarified that courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot legitimise practices that lack legal sanction. It emphasised that allowing such claims would effectively endorse unauthorised collection of money, which is impermissible in law.

Referring to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, court noted that the legislation, while recognising the rights and identity of transgender persons, does not confer any right to collect badhai or assert territorial claims for such activities.

Court also expressed concern that granting the relief sought could open the door to similar claims by other individuals or groups, potentially leading to widespread illegal extraction or extortion. It observed that such acts are offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and cannot be given judicial approval.

Conclusively, the bench held that the petitioner’s claim was devoid of merit and could not be sustained in law. Court refused to recognise any customary right that conflicts with statutory provisions or public policy, reiterating that no individual can be compelled to pay money except as authorised by law.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Rekha Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) Lko. And 6 Others

Order Date: April 15, 2026

Bench: Justices Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai