On 5 November 2025, the Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR) along with Ondede, organised a panel discussion on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the Jane Kaushik v. Union of India case. The Court criticised the Union and State Governments for their neglect in implementing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (“TG Act”) and subsequent Rules. It also established an Advisory Committee comprising civil society, legal academics and transgender activists to formulate an Equal Opportunity Policy and address systemic discrimination against transgender persons.
Wednesday’s panel featured three members of the Advisory Committee including Akkai Padmashali, transgender rights activist and founder of Ondede, Nithya Rhea Rajshekhar, Senior Researcher at CLPR; and Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari who is the amicus curiae. It also featured Arvind Narrain, queer rights advocate, legal scholar and founding member of the Alternative Law Forum. The event brought together advocates, law students and community members to discuss the legal and social significance of the judgment and its implications for the rights of transgender persons in India.
The programme opened with an overview of the Jane Kaushik judgment by Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari. She explained the Court’s examination of the Transgender Rights Act through the framework of substantive equality, holding both State and private institutions responsible for ensuring equality and non-discrimination against transgender persons. The judgment concludes with both suggestions to improve the lives of transgender persons and mandatory directions to the Government to enforce the TG Act in letter and spirit.
The panellists then went on to reflect on their takeaways from the judgment.
Arvind Narrain highlighted the Court’s recognition of indirect and omissive discrimination, observing government inaction amounts discrimination. Unlike the Supriyo v. Union of India decision on marriage equality, Jane Kaushik offers both rights and remedies through concrete directions, including establishing a committee with defined members, timelines, and resources.
Akkai Padmashali reflected on the long struggle for dignity and recognition from the perspective of the trans-community. She commended the Court for acknowledging social stigma and the historical criminalisation of transgender persons. She emphasised the need for inclusive representation, noting the absence of trans-masculine and intersex persons in the Committee. She called for wider consultations and translation of the judgement into Kannada and other languages to promote awareness at the grassroots.
Nithya Rajshekhar discussed the Committee’s mandate, describing it as ‘golden opportunity’ for systemic reform across education, health, employment, and social inclusion. She explained that government officials on the Committee have advisory roles only, ensuring that community voices are not overshadowed. Immediate funding was also directed to enable the Committee’s work. She highlighted potential reforms, including horizontal reservation, streamlined procedures for name and gender change, and removal of medical barriers to self-identification. She stressed that community mobilisation and sustained pressure are crucial for change.
During the Q&A, participants sought clarity on the Committee’s powers, scope, and priorities. The panelists explained that the Committee’s role is to transform suggestions into actionable reforms. Addressing concerns about representation and systemic exclusion, panellists highlighted that the Committee’s mandate extends to those who cannot access courts, thus bridging the gap between rights recognition and enforcement.
The discussion also covered community benefits of the judgment. Speakers highlighted the Court’s directives to appoint an appellate authority for name and gender change rejections, and requiring all workplaces to appoint a Complaints Officer. These are tangible solutions with an immediate impact on trans lives.
Responding to a query about the contradiction between Jane Kaushik and Supriyo, Mr. Narrain explained that while the latter deferred to the legislature. Jane Kaushik asserted judicial responsibility to act against legislative omission, opening space for future reforms in areas such as marriage and inheritance.
Participants also raised issues of employment discrimination, housing, and welfare access faced regularly by transgender persons, which the panel emphasised would be taken into consideration by the Committee in its deliberations. Ms. Padmashali emphasised that the Committee must pair employment policies with workplace sensitisation, anti-harassment mechanisms, and training initiatives to ensure retention. Mr. Narrain emphasised that the judgment’s focus on substantive equality allows for the interpreting laws and policies in a purposive manner, doing justice to the guarantee of non-discrimination under the TG Act.
Concluding the discussion, the panel invoked Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision of constitutional morality, stressing that the Court’s judgment reinforces equality by challenging social prejudice through law and democratic engagement. The panellists agreed that the Jane Kaushik decision represents a watershed moment for transgender rights in India. Its success, however, will depend on sustained implementation, inclusive representation, and continuous awareness at all levels of governance and society.
Watch the full discussion here.
