The NALSA Judgment (2014) and the Navtej Johar Judgment (2018) both produced a subject of gender and sexuality in a present-in-history. Both judgments presumably did not announce the recognition of new identities but traced histories of identities built on sexual and gendered differences from ancient India onwards.
Transgender rights are at the forefront of gender inclusivity in India since the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in NALSA v. Union of India. These dialogues gained significant momentum when the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was enacted. Taking into consideration the vehement opposition to the legislation, CLPR held a community meeting “Conversations on Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019” to discuss the legal issues and challenges to the law. The meeting saw participation from the transgender community, lawyers, and human rights activists alike. Strong voices of Anindya Hajra, Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli, Grace Banu and Akkai Padmashali guided the conversation through the various issues that are constitutionally and procedurally problematic.
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.
Five years after the NALSA judgement, how have courts and government bodies fared in complying with the right to self-identify? This piece presents an analysis of cases in the High Courts which have dealt with self-identification of gender in employment, inclusion in the police force, and identification changes in educational certificates.
The fundamental right of transgender persons to marry individuals of their choice was recently affirmed by the Madras High Court in Arunkumar and Another. v The Inspector General of Registration and Ors. The High Court upheld a Hindu marriage between Arunkumar and Sreeja (a transwoman) which the Registrar of Marriages, Tuticorin had previously refused to register.… The Court looked beyond the facts of the case to address issues of self-determination, personal autonomy and freedom of self-expression, culminating in the recognition of transgender persons’ right to marry.
In 2018, CLPR filed a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court of Telangana on behalf of transgender rights activists seeking implementation of the Supreme Court’s directions in NALSA v. Union of India.
CLPR represented Dr. Akkai Padmashali, Uma Umesh, and Suma M in the Supreme Court to challenge Section 377 of the IPC. The Supreme Court held Section 377 as unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalised consensual sexual activity of any kind between adults. It was further held that the provision was manifestly arbitrary and violative of an individuals right to autonomy.
Marking the fourth anniversary of the NALSA judgment recognizing the right to self-identify one’s gender,…
The transgender community remains one of the most marginalized communities, discriminated against on a daily…
hile the NALSA judgment recognises the ancillary rights to vote, marriage, adoption, hold property etc., transphobia and the limited perceptions of society prevents equal access to education and employment. Prejudiced societal norms that manifest in biased behaviours have forced the transgender community to take up begging and enter the sex trade to make a livelihood. While the judgment is progressive and promising, there is much work pending at the ground level.
Three years down the line however, the Board seems to be languishing in bureaucratic lethargy. This is not because of the lack of initiative on the part of its members. The Board comprises of well-known and respected members of the trans community. Rather, the disenchantment with the Board stems from the lack of transparency in its creation, non-inclusiveness, internal divisions within the community and lack of a steady funding supply
The National Legal Services Authority v Union of India has the potential to play a…