Author: Sejal Agarwal

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: 2025 INSC 1248 | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan, JJ. 

Date of Judgment: October 17, 2025

Relevant Provisions/Statutes:

Article 14, 15, 16 & 21 of Constitution of India

Section 377 of Indian Penal Code

Section 3, 9 & 10 of Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019

Rule 11, 12 & 13 of Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020

Brief Facts:

The Petitioner is a highly qualified transgender woman and a teacher appointed, was appointed in a private school in Uttar Pradesh with due process. She faced major transphobia, body shaming and harassment from colleagues and students, and she was forced to resign from the school by the threat to withhold her salary for a period of days during which she worked. The school justifies the resignation claiming poor performance of the Petitioner.

After several months, she was selected in another private school in Gujarat. However, after school received her documents and verified her identity, her appointment was withdrawn. Ms. Kaushik initially sought relief through administrative channels but she found that the machinery promised in the 2019 Act only existed on paper in most states.

She approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, arguing that failure to implement an Act passed for protection violated her fundamental rights.

Issues:

Whether the acts and omissions by both schools lead to discrimination against the petitioner based on her identity, and whether there is an obligation on different states to protect fundamental rights against private schools through the 2019 Act?

If the answer to the above issue is affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation?

Arguments:

On behalf of the petitioner-

 Mr. Yahraj Singh Deora, learned Senior Counsel submitted on behalf of the petitioner how even after presence of the 2019 Act and 2020 rules, there is a severe lack of actual compliance and enforcement of the act.

He argues that the Act remains a ‘dead letter’ due to the Union and State Governments failing to realize the actual realities of the community and the lack of bureaucratic will to mandate the compliance officers to enforce provisions of 2019 Act and 2020 Act respectively. 

It was further submitted that discrimination in choosing one’s profession violates the dignity of an individual which is a direct attack to one’s fundamental right of ‘Right to Life’ under Article 21.

On behalf of the Respondent:

The school argued that the dispute between petitioner and respondent is between an employer and an employee and is purely a private contractual matter, contended that private schools do not perform public law functions in their employment decisions.

Counsel for the respondent also argues that Transgender Persons Act, 2019 imposes a duty not to discriminate on employers and is not a positive duty to prioritize them over other individuals; they also contended that it is duty of the ‘appropriate government’ according to 2020 rules and not private unaided schools.

Judgment:

Supreme Court recognized the fact that despite having the proper legislation in form of The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the community’s statutory rights remain only an empty formality. The petitioner was terminated from two private schools – one just 8 days after employment due to harassment and transphobia and in another just after her identity was revealed in the documents. Even after having the protection of Act, petitioner was left with no legal discourse due to the failure of state authorities not implementing mandatory mechanisms.

Ratio Decidendi:

Article 32 is not just injunctive but also remedial, the Court can award compensation as a public law remedy in cases where the state who has the duty to protect, violated the fundamental rights of the individual.

Equality under Constitution can only be ensured if the protecting parties continue vigilance and maintain active participation and take measures for marginalized communities and do not just provide passive assurance.

Fundamental rights under Article 15, 17, 19 and 21 have horizontal application, they extend to private relationships and can impose duties on non-state actors such as private schools to ensure that the marginalized groups are treated with dignity.

Obiter Dicta:

It was noted that administrative lethargy by governments has allowed non-state actors or private entities to put compliance of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, in a cold freeze.

Final decision:

The Union of India and the concerned State governments were all ordered by the Court to pay Rs. 50,000 each to the petitioner for their inaction and lethargy. The Second school was also ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation.

The Court gave directions to form a Advisory Committee, with a list of members, to address the concerns of transgender community and prepare a comprehensive policy draft addressing major issues.

Directed the Union of India to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, within two weeks from the date of order to fund Committee’s initial operations.

The Court issued a continuing mandamus, to ensure and monitor the progress of its orders over time.