Supreme Court Pulls Up Delhi High Court, Says Justice Asha Menon Panel Can’t Decide Transgender Job Rights Cases
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Justice Asha Menon Advisory Committee has no power to decide legal disputes on transgender recruitment. It granted relief to petitioners and said courts—not committees—must decide such rights-based issues. The Supreme Court of India has recently raised serious concerns over how the Delhi High Court handled a case related to the recruitment rights of transgender persons in public employment. While issuing notice in the matter, the apex court observed that the High Court made a prima facie mistake by disposing of the petitions and asking the petitioners to approach an advisory body instead of deciding the legal issues itself. The case revolves around the rights of transgender individuals seeking fair representation and opportunities in government jobs. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. V. Viswanathan made it clear that the Advisory Committee headed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon does not have the power to decide legal disputes. The Court observed, “Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in disposing of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Advisory Committee as the Committee possesses no adjudicatory powers.” The Supreme Court clarified that the role of the Advisory Committee is limited. It is only meant to study issues and give policy recommendations to the government. It cannot decide individual legal cases or grant relief to petitioners. During the hearing, the Court also recalled that the petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 while the case was still pending before the High Court. Referring to that, the bench stated, “We must note at the outset that in 2023, the petitioner had also approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner prayed for reliefs pertaining to the framing of an equal opportunity policy, the implementation of various provisions of the TPPR Act and TPPR Rules including various other reliefs in the specific facts of her case. While dealing with the said petition, this Court delivered the judgment titled Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, reported in 2026 (1) SCC 336, wherein several binding directions relating to the implementation of the TPPR Act and TPPR Rules, respectively were issued.” The Court further explained that the Advisory Committee is still working on several important issues related to transgender rights. These include creating an Equal Opportunity Policy, improving grievance redressal systems, ensuring inclusive healthcare, and addressing gaps in the law. Highlighting this, the Court said, “The Advisory Committee is currently in the process of working on the aspects broadly delineated in their remit including the formulation of a model equal opportunity policy in employment and education.” Importantly, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to the petitioner. It allowed the petitioner to apply for government job vacancies under the transgender category, even if the vacancy mentions a specific gender. This is in line with an earlier interim order passed in January 2023, ensuring that transgender candidates are not excluded from opportunities due to rigid gender classifications. The original petitions filed before the Delhi High Court had sought several directions to strengthen transgender rights in public employment. These included demands for separate vacancies, reservation in jobs including teaching posts in Delhi, age and qualification relaxations, and allowing changes in name and gender on official recruitment portals. While deciding the case earlier, the Delhi High Court had relied on important judgments like NALSA v. Union of India, which recognized transgender persons as the “third gender” and directed the government to treat them as socially and educationally backward classes. The High Court had also referred to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, which highlighted gaps in implementing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and its 2020 Rules. Based on this, the High Court felt that since the Supreme Court had already formed an Advisory Committee to deal with these issues, the petitioners should approach that body instead. However, the Supreme Court has now clarified that such committees cannot replace courts when it comes to deciding legal rights. The matter will now be heard further after notice has been issued. In a related development, the Advisory Committee led by Justice Asha Menon has reportedly recommended that the Union Government withdraw the proposed Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, indicating ongoing concerns about the legal framework governing transgender rights in India. This case is likely to have significant implications for how transgender rights are enforced in public employment and how courts balance policy-making bodies with judicial authority in protecting fundamental rights. By Hardik Khandelwal Courtesy : Law Chakra Note: This news is originally published on https:/lawchakra.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Delhi HC seeks Centre’s stand on petitions challenging amended transgender law
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the Centre’s stand on two petitions challenging provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, for taking away one’s right to a self-perceived gender identity. A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice on petitions by Chandresh Jain and Lakshay Jain and asked the central government to file its reply within six weeks. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed by Parliament on March 25 and received President Droupadi Murmu’s assent on March 30. Petitioner Chandresh Jain said the Act “removes and dilutes” self-perceived gender identity and instead introduces a regime of State-controlled verification, certification and screening of gender identity, which violates rights to dignity, privacy and decisional autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. His petition further said that the amendment Act is manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate, and it infringes Article 19(1)(a) by restricting the expression of gender identity. Lakshya Jain’s petition said that the amendment altered the existing statutory framework by replacing self-perceived gender identity with a regime of medical and administrative verification, including scrutiny by a district magistrate (DM). His plea said that such a requirement was ex facie violative of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority versus Union of India, which held that gender identity is a matter of self-identification and psychological identity must take precedence over biological attributes. Chandresh Jain’s plea emphasised that the apex court has already held that gender identity is an integral part of dignity, autonomy and personal liberty under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21, and every individual has the right to a self-identified gender. The case would be next heard on July 22. Courtesy : The Pioneer Note: This news is originally published on https:/thepioneer.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Rahul’s citizenship issue: HC sets hearing on Apr 15
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court on Monday heard at length the case related to alleged dual citizenship controversy pertaining to Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi. The hearing took place in the chamber of the court as it was pointed out by the Central govt that the issue was sensitive. The bench has now fixed April 15 as the next date of hearing in the matter. A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on the petition filed by S Vignesh Shishir, a BJP worker of Karnataka. The petitioner has challenged the Jan 28 order of the special MP/MLA court, Lucknow whereby it had rejected his plea to order registration of FIR against Rahul Gandhi. The MP/MLA court had said that it was not competent to decide the citizenship issue. The petitioner seeks registration of FIR against Rahul Gandhi and detailed probe against him in the matter . He has levelled several allegations against Rahul Gandhi under BNS, Official Secrets Act, Foreigners Act and Passport Act. Hearing the matter earlier, the bench had asked the Central govt as to what action was taken by it on a complaint moved against Rahul’s British citizenship. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Nashik court disposes of defamation case against Rahul Gandhi
Nashik: The court of additional chief judicial magistrate Rupali Narwadiya has disposed of the defamation case filed against leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi. The case was initiated by Devendra Bhutada, president of the Nashik-based Nirbhaya Foundation, who alleged that Gandhi made defamatory remarks about Hindutva ideologue and freedom fighter VD Savarkar during ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ rallies held in Hingoli and Akole on June 15 and 16, 2022. Bhutada approached the court shortly after learning of the comments. Following the complaint, a case was registered under sections 499 (defamation) and 504 (intentional insult) of IPC, and the court issued summons to Gandhi in Sept 2024. Last July, the additional chief judicial magistrate granted Gandhi bail, allowing him to attend hearings virtually, during which he pleaded not guilty. Defence lawyer Gajendra Sanap said the court had ordered an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, and after police submitted their investigation report, the complainant sought to withdraw the case. Mohan Pingale, representing Bhutada, said the withdrawal application was filed because Bhutada’s daughter had recently moved abroad, making it difficult for him to attend frequent hearings. He said the four-year-old case had led to summons and warrants against Gandhi, requiring him to secure bail and participate in virtual proceedings. Pingale said the Supreme Court mandated priority handling of cases involving MPs and MLAs. “In view of the circumstances, we applied to withdraw the case, and the court accepted the request, thereby disposing of the matter,” he said. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Rahul’s citizenship plea: HC seeks papers from Centre
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court Monday sought relevant records from the Union ministry of home affairs while hearing a petition alleging that Congress MP Rahul Gandhi is a British citizen. The single-judge bench of Justice Rajeev Singh scheduled the next hearing in the matter for March 19. The petition was filed by S Vignesh Shishir, a BJP worker in Karnataka, who has challenged the Jan 28, 2026, order of the special MP/MLA court in Lucknow, which had rejected his plea to order registration of an FIR against Gandhi. The MP/MLA court had said it was not competent to decide the citizenship issue. Hearing the matter on Monday at length, the bench also asked the union govt counsel, Raj Kumar Singh, about the action taken by the Centre on a complaint moved against Rahul’s alleged British citizenship. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Rahul Gandhi appears before Bhiwandi court in defamation case
BHIWANDI: Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi appeared before a court here on Saturday in connection with a criminal defamation case stemming from remarks made during the 2014 Lok Sabha election campaign.Sources said Gandhi’s personal appearance was largely procedural and necessitated by the recent demise of his former surety, Shivraj Patil Chakurkar, who had stood guarantee for his bail. With the earlier surety holder passing away last month, fresh surety formalities were required to be completed before the court. The case dates back to a public rally in Sonale village in Bhiwandi taluka during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, where Gandhi allegedly stated that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was responsible for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Following the speech, RSS office-bearer Rajesh Kunte filed a private complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, accusing Gandhi of defaming the organisation. Advocate Narayan Iyer, representing Gandhi, said the appearance was mandated due to the submission of a new surety. “Gandhi was required to be present as a new surety has been furnished following the demise of his earlier surety. The hearing was primarily procedural,” Iyer told TOI. On Gandhi’s behalf, Maharashtra Congress president Harshwardhan Sapkal was presented as the new surety before the court.Iyer said that after Sapkal’s surety was submitted, Gandhi signed the bond. Iyer added that the matter has reached an advanced stage. “The chief examination and cross-examination of the complainant, Rajesh Kunte, have been concluded. The trial is progressing,” he said. In view of Gandhi’s visit, Thane Police had deployed additional personnel around the court premises to manage crowds and ensure law and order. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
DM’s certificate under Transgender Act conclusive proof of gender for passport: Allahabad HC
The bench said Clause 5 of the DM’s certificate allows name and gender updates in all records, and passport authorities cannot seek fresh medical tests or extra documents. PRAYAGRAJ: The certificate issued by a district magistrate under Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 is conclusive proof of a person’s gender identity for the purpose of issuance of a passport, the Allahabad High Court has ruled. A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan observed that the passport authority “cannot insist on a fresh medical examination” or “seek changes in the birth certificate” for effecting a change of gender in a passport. The court passed the order on February 10 while disposing of a petition filed by Khush R Goel, who had challenged a June 23, 2025 order of the passport authorities directing him to undergo a fresh medical examination at a clinic empanelled by them for change of gender in his passport. According to the plea, the petitioner was born a female but later identified as a transgender person. After attaining majority, he underwent gender reassignment surgery and transitioned to male. He subsequently approached the district magistrate and obtained a certificate under the 2019 Act, which entitles the holder to change name and gender in all official documents. However, when he sought correction of gender in his passport, the authorities directed him to undergo a fresh medical examination. The bench noted that Clause 5 of the certificate issued by the district magistrate specifically entitles the holder to update name and gender in all official documents. It held that once such a certificate is issued, there is no requirement for the passport authorities to demand any further medical examination or additional documents. Emphasising the object behind the enactment of the 2019 law, the court observed that Parliament brought in the statute to address the social ostracism faced by transgender persons and to ensure their dignity and equal rights, so that they are not compelled to suppress their identities contrary to their innate personality. Holding that the district magistrate’s certificate “gives a quietus to the controversy,” the court disposed of the petition and set aside the requirement of further medical examination. Courtesy : TNIE Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Not every insult to a member of the SC/ST community is an atrocity: Understand this important Calcutta High Court decision
The court also clarified that it is not enough for the accused to know the caste of the victim. A crime is committed when the insult is committed “on the ground or by reason of the person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.” Kolkata—In a landmark judgment delivered on February 11, the Calcutta High Court clarified that every insult or threat directed at a member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) is not automatically considered a crime under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A single bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), while hearing a criminal revisional application in the case of Moumita Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal, quashed the entire proceedings at the Amherst Street Police Station, including the charge sheet filed therein. The case relates to a professional dispute in the Sanskrit Department. The complainant, who belongs to the SC community and joined as an Assistant Professor on November 14, 2018, alleged that Moumita Bhattacharya, as Head of the Department, humiliated him on the basis of caste, mentally harassed him, and harmed his career. The allegations included not inviting the complainant to departmental meetings, withholding meeting resolutions, stopping undergraduate classes, preventing him from conducting examination/evaluation duties, conspiring with students, and using abusive language in online meetings. The complaint was filed on December 4, 2021. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed on April 10, 2022, and the Special Court took cognizance. Petitioner Moumita Bhattacharya filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings. Citing his qualifications, he stated that he holds a PhD in Sanskrit from Visva Bharati University, a post-doctoral fellowship, passed SLET, and has held editorial positions in various journals, and stated that the allegations are false, motivated by vengeance, and lack the essential elements of an offence under the SC/ST Act. The Court, citing several Supreme Court judgments (Sajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, Swaran Singh v. State, etc.), clarified the essential elements of Section 3(1)(r). The Court stated: “The basic elements of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) are as follows: The accused must not be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Such insult or intimidation must be with the intent to humiliate that person. And such insult or intimidation must occur in a public place or in public view.” The court further made an important observation: “Not every intentional insult or threat directed at a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe will constitute caste-based humiliation. This is only the case if the insult or threat is due to the prevalent practice of untouchability or to reinforce notions such as the historical superiority of upper castes over lower castes/untouchables, or the notions of purity and impurity.” The court also clarified that it is not enough for the accused to know the victim’s caste. The offense is made out when the insult is inflicted “on the ground or by reason of the person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.” The complaint mentioned a specific incident where the complainant was referred to as “Adarsh Sir” in an online meeting. The court made a strong comment on this: “‘Adarsh’ means ideal, and ‘Sir’ is a respectful address. This court is at a loss to understand how calling someone ‘Adarsh Sir’ can be derogatory, even if done sarcastically. This cannot, in any case, constitute an offense under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.” Applying the principles of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, the court held that even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted as completely true, they do not constitute an offense. The proceedings appear to be motivated by personal enmity and revenge. Therefore, it is appropriate to quash them under Section 482 CrPC. Geetha Sunil Pillai Courtesy: Hindi News