Justice Pardiwala’s Verdict A New Dawn for Transgender Rights in India in Jane Kaushik Case

In an almost unanimous and highly understanding verdict, the Supreme Court of India on October 17, 2025, came out with an extended condemnation on the failure of the system to ensure the rights of transgender persons and went beyond rhetoric to lay out a tangible route to substantive equality. The case, Jane Kaushik v. Union of India and Ors., was developed based on a painful experience of a transgender woman who was reportedly fired in two various jobs as a teaching instructor because of her gender identity. What started as a personal struggle of one person in his quest to obtain dignity has resulted in an unprecedented verdict that reveals the outrageously non-committal stance of the state, puts the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 into practice, and involves the government and other parties in their negligence and bias.

Not only is the judgment of the Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan a legal document, but also a revelation and a wake-up call. It carefully tears apart the divide between the rights proclaimed on paper and the cruel realities, which the transgender community lives in and reaches a conclusion that the lack of active legislative action and the apathy of the administration is a type of discrimination in itself.

The Colonial Experience of the Petitioner: Humbiliating and Exclusionary.

Ms. Jane Kaushik who is a qualified and educated transgender woman with a career in teaching brought the case. Her experience as explained in the judgment is a heart-rending example of the obstacles that the community encounters. She went through Gender Affirmative Surgery in 2019 after graduating her post-graduate studies and a diploma in teacher training.

Her misfortunes started with her appointment as a Trained Graduate Teacher in one of the private schools (which we will call the First School) in November of 2022. In just eight days, allegedly, she was name-called, harassed, and body-shamed by both colleagues and students. Although she wrote to the Principal, she was supposedly pressured to resign over her transgender status being exposed to one of the students. The initial reason that the school quoted as the poor performance but a subsequent legal notice identified that she was dismissed because it was in the greater interest of the students.

Then, in July 2023, Ms. Kaushik was offered a post of an English teacher in another private school (the “Second School”) in Jamnagar, Gujarat. Nonetheless, when she was on her way to join, the school when they found out she was a transgender woman by her identity proofs rejected her not only employment but even her entry to the school premises without the formal termination letter.

Ms. Kaushik resorted to a pillar to pillar run to seek assistance of the National Commission for Women (NCW), the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP), and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) before approaching the Supreme Court but had no effective solution. This was a major lapse: the mechanisms of redress of grievances provided by the law were not working at all, and she had no solution.

The Court Rebuke: An Accusing indictment of State Inaction.

The Supreme Court revealed its painful and anguish at the state of affairs, stating that more than 10 years after its historic NALSA v. The case of Union of India that acknowledged the existence of the so-called Third Gender and five years after the adoption of the 2019 Act, the question of whether transgender persons can live a dignified life remains open to answer.

The Court made the announcement that the 2019 Act and the 2020 Rules that accompany it have been brutally brought down to dead letter. It discovered no casualty in the grossly indifferent attitude of the Union and State governments, but apparently an intentional one, based on an underlying societal stigma and absence of the bureaucratic will. The Court noted that this administrative lethargy by the government has caused non-state establishments such as schools to freeze compliance in a cold freeze which has caused a severe abeyance of rights to the community.

The case highlighted the sheer ignorance of a prior Supreme Court order by the government in Shanavi Ponnusamy v. The Union had been instructed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation (2022) to develop a policy framework aimed at accommodating transgender persons reasonably in the employment sector. Rather than making the required compliance, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE) informed parliament in March 2023 that no other policy was being considered necessary since the 2019 Act was considered adequate. The Court determined that such position was in blatant violation of its constitutional and statutory responsibilities.

Diversification of Equality Code: Discrimination by Omission and Reasonable Accommodation.

The thought proving aspect of the judgment is the deep consideration of the substantive equality. To the situation of transgender rights, the Court presented and implemented two essential notions: omissive discrimination and reasonable accommodation.

Omissive Discrimination: When Nonaction is a Weapon.

The Court gave a strong argument that discrimination is not only carried out in explicit ways (commission) but also in terms of omission- the silence, omissions, and negligence of the law to safeguard particular groups. It believed that where there is an obligation on the part of the state to do something the failure to do so is discrimination of some sort. The Court referred to the shortcomings of the 2019 Act, namely, its inability to establish effective mechanisms that would ensure rights will be materialized, as an example of what it refers to as omissive discrimination, which infringes upon the principle of substantive equality. The inability of the governments to frame the rules, establish Transgender Protection Cells, and provide the establishment with Complaint Officers was not perceived as an administrative failure but a dereliction of a constitutional responsibility which had actively injured the petitioner.

Reasonable Accommodation: A Positive Duty towards Inclusion.

Using its disability rights jurisprudence, the Court declared that reasonable accommodations principle was implicitly included in the 2019 Act and a positive duty to the state and the establishments in the private sphere. It has made it clear that this does not imply equating gender identity to the disability. Rather it is the borrowing of a positive legal concept to obtain substantive equality of another group which is marginalized. The Court observed that the discrimination that transgender persons are subjected to is a disability in society, the failure of the society to escape the backward tradition.

The judgment described reasonable accommodation not as a privilege or charity, but as a necessary device so that people are able to enjoy their rights just like other people. It involves undergoing the required adjustments be it infrastructural, procedural or policy based to eliminate the obstacles and facilitate complete participation. The Court ordered this positive obligation to be the direct concomitant of Article 14 promise of equality before the law which does not merely encompass formal equality but requires actions that will assist the unequal in becoming equal in the deed.

The Holistic Approach to Equality.

To place its analysis in context, the Court took up four dimensional framework of substantive equality as suggested by scholar Sandra Fredman, showing how the four dimensions are already enforced in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

• Redressing Disadvantage: The Court affirmed that the Constitution required affirmative action to balance historical, social, and political drawbacks.
• In the Stigma and Stereotypes the judgment eloquently restated that the law and the policy could not be founded on the morality of the masses and the stereotyping. It stressed the fact that constitutional morality should always overrule social biases towards groups of people such as transgender.
• The Improvement of Voice and Participation The Court acknowledged that the right to enjoy social and public life without fear is an important element of equality as derived out of the right to expression and a dignified life under Articles 19 and 21.
• Accommodating Difference to Structural Change: Lastly, the Court emphasized that to have equality, structural changes in law and society are necessary to accommodate differences, as opposed to subjecting people to a binary norm.

Using this framework to the case involving Ms. Kaushik, a complete system failure was observed by the Court. The absence of a grievance system did not compensate her disadvantage; the action of the schools was based on stigma; her marginalization deprived her of a voice; and the general inactivity demonstrated the inability to accommodate difference and create structural change.

Holding the Private Schools Responsible.
The Court was categorical in dismissing the claim that unaided schools that are privately owned are not subject to constitutional and statutory obligations. It has referred to the broad meaning of establishing, as stated at Section 2(b) of the 2019 Act, which makes it clear that it is inclusive of a private establishment. This, the Court observed, is an obvious law enforcement provision that the fundamental rights apply horizontally i.e. these rights are not only enforceable against the state but also against non-state actors.

In its specific findings:

Although it was not proven that the First School did not terminate him intentionally, it was reprimanded because of not complying with the 2019 Act by not appointing a Complaint Officer. The Court said that this omission was a natural consequence of the inaction of the State in implementing the law itself.

The behavior of the Second School was considered one of the clear examples of discrimination. The Court rejected its defense of that it was an administrative action and the petitioner was dismissed merely on the basis that she was a transgender woman, which is outright a violation of Section 9 of the Act.

A Multi-Pronged Solution: Compensation, Directions, and a Committee.
The Court declined to make the fundamental right a empty promise, and developed a holistic range of remedies.

• Compensation: The Court granted compensation as a result of the infringement of rights, which was gross and patent. The Second School was advised to pay 50000 rupees as a fine in relation to its discriminatory action. More importantly the two involved State Governments in addition to the Union of India were instructed to pay the petitioner 50,000 rupees apiece due to their omissive discrimination, the omission of a redressal mechanism to leave her powerless.
• Mandatory Directions: The Court acted in compliance with its authority in Article 142 and granted a continuing mandamus with a rigid three-month deadline to comply. Being mandatory is the creation of Welfare Board of transgender persons in each state/UT, formation of Transgender Protection Cells at both district and state levels, and also ensuring that in each and every establishment a Complaint Officer is appointed. A national toll-free call line was also commissioned to be installed.
• Advisory Committee: Having recognised the complexity of the matters, the Court formed an Advisory Committee of high power, which was composed of former judges of the High Court, activists, legal experts, and senior government secretaries. This committee took the responsibility of coming up with a comprehensive Equal Opportunity Policy on employment and education, finding gaps in the 2019 Act, and to give recommendations on a broad spectrum of matters, including inclusive medical care and streamlining the process of changing gender on the official documents. The committee will report within half a year and the Union Government will have to develop its own policy.

The decision of Jane Kaushik v. Union of India The watershed moment in transgender rights in India. The fact that the judiciary takes on the ultimate role and guardian of the Constitution in cases where the legislative and executive branches are inept in their responsibilities is a testament to the judiciary as the ultimate provider of action. The Court has not only offered justice to a person but also has set a strong legal framework to ensure that these cases of injustice do not reoccur.

In predicting the omissive discrimination and reasonable accommodation ideas, the Supreme Court has essentially enriched the understanding of equality. It has spoken with one voice that rights are not window-dressings in a code of statutes, but are vital guarantees, and must be protected, effected and enforced. The path forward is now clear. The governments have the burden to overcome their inertia and the society to overcome its bias. Such a ruling is a strong legal impetus to make the promise of equality come true as a dream and a reality of all transgenders in India.