SC Fights Discrimination: Transgender Teacher to Get Compensation, Policy Panel Set Up

The Supreme Court of India has formed an Advisory Committee headed by Justice Asha Menon, Former Judge of the Delhi High Court, for formulating a practical policy draft and/or a report for the consideration of the Union of India, so as to further the transgender rights discourse and give effect to the beneficial provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights Act), 2019 (the 2019 Act).

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan has requested the committee to complete its deliberations and submit the draft policy or the report, as it deems appropriate, within a period of 6 months from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. 

"The Union of India shall bring forth its own Equal Opportunity Policy in place, within three months from the date the Committee submits its report and/or policy draft. In case, any establishment does not have a policy of its own, the policy that the Union would be bringing in place shall be enforceable at such an establishment. Considering the nature of the case, the Union will have to satisfy us on substantial compliance. In this regard, we, therefore, issue a continuing mandamus. The Union shall also ensure upon the compliance of our directions and guidelines in all States. It will be for the Union to also apprise us on the compliance by all the States", the judgment adds.

This decision has come from the Supreme Court while it dealt with a petition filed by Ms. Jane Kaushik, a transgender woman who was aggrieved by the discrimination and humiliation she faced as a transgender person in employment which allegedly resulted in her termination from two different schools situated in two different States in the span of a year. 

Court has directed the government respondents to pay Rs 50,000/- each by way of compensation to Kaushik for their inaction and lethargy which resulted in lack of redressal mechanisms for her to avail. 

On the 2019 Act, court has said that while the Act takes significant steps towards securing a slew of benefits for the transgender persons, these benefits are made dependent on the possession of an identification card. In this context, the MoSJE may consider simplifying and streamlining the process of issuance of identification cards to the transgender persons. 

"Raising awareness about the realities of the plight of transgender persons can further help in promoting a safe, conducive and inclusive environment for transgender people. Schools, particularly play a crucial role in this regard, as it helps create awareness for generations to come by shaping the perceptions of students from a very young age. It is, therefore, suggested that the Ministry of Education undertake comprehensive programmes aimed at fostering inclusivity and sensitisation towards gender diversity", court has further said.

Noting that several provisions in both the 2019 Act and the 2020 Rules respectivel remain as mere aspirations on paper despite the same being couched in a mandatory language, the Supreme Court has exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the following: 

1. That the appellate authority before which a transgender person may exercise their right to appeal against the decision of the District Magistrate be designated as per Rule 9 of the 2020 Rules in every State/UT.

2. That a Welfare Board for the transgender persons as envisaged under Rule 10(1) of the 2020 Rules be created in every State/UT for the purpose protecting their rights and interests and also facilitating access to schemes and welfare measures.

3. That a Transgender Protection Cell under the charge of the District Magistrate in each District and under the Director General of Police of the State be set up in each State/UT in accordance with Rule 11(5) of the 2020 Rules, in order to monitor cases of offences against transgender persons and to ensure timely registration, investigation and prosecution of such offences.

4. That all States/UTs ensure that every “establishment” designates a complaint officer in accordance with Section 11 of the 2019 Act and Rule 13(1) of the 2020 Rules respectively. In the absence of a forum before which an objection can be raised by a transgender person, who is aggrieved with the decision taken by the head of the establishment under Rule 13(3) of the 2020 Rules, the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) shall be designated as the appropriate authority to look into such objections.

5. A dedicated nation-wide toll-free helpline number be set up to address the contravention of any provision of the 2019 Act and the 2020 Rules respectively. If any such information regarding the violation of the provisions of the 2019 Act and 2020 Rules respectively, is received by the helpline, it shall immediately report such information to the Transgender Protection Cells under the charge of the District Magistrate in each District and under the Director General of Police of the State, as the case may require. This nation-wide toll-free helpline number would have a wider scope than the grievance redressal mechanism envisioned under Rule 13(5) of the 2020 Rules.

Case Title: JANE KAUSHIK vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment Date: October 17, 2025

Bench: Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan