The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2019 was strategically introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 20th November 2019, being the Transgender Day of Remembrance, by the Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, Mr. Thawarchand Gehlot. The Bill had previously lapsed after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha on account of the general elections and was reintroduced and duly passed by the Lok Sabha on 5th August 2019. This post captures the key debates held in the Rajya Sabha on the Bill.
The Petition was filed challenging the Notification No. E(2) 7271/2018-19/PSC dated 11.02.2019 (hereinafter the Impugned Notification) calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill up posts of First Division Assistant (FDA) and posts of Second Division Assistant (SDA) of the Bangalore City Civil Court and the different District and Sessions Courts across the State, issued by the Respondent No. 1, seeking that separate reservations be provided for transgender persons.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court held, with respect to a petition for change of name and gender of a transgender person in educational documents, that on receipt of the application along with the fee of Rs.500, the Respondent No. 1 University should carry out the necessary change within a period of three weeks.
CLPR represented three transgender persons in appealing to the Madras High Court for the relaxation of the age bar for the post of grade II police constable.
CLPR represented a transgender person seeking change of name and gender in school certificates and pre-university records before the Karnataka High Court.
In January 2018, the present Public Interest Litigation was brought under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPD Act”) challenging the actions of the Respondent No. 1 in the appointment of LPG distributors vide Notification dated 17.08.2018. In its call for the selection of 238 LPG distributors in various districts of Karnataka, the Respondent No. 1 failed to reserve 5% of the distributorships, amounting to 11 spots, for persons with disabilities as mandated under section 37 of the RPD Act. Instead, only 6 positions were reserved which was less than even 3% of 238 distributorships.