JANE KAUSHIK V. THE UNION OF INDIA

Leave a Comment / Case Summaries / By

Published on: 18th April 2026

Authored by: JEYASHRI R
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, MADURAI

CITATIONS: 2025 INSC 1248, 2026 1 SCC 336, 2025 Live Law (SC) 1018, 2025 Supreme (SC) 1830.

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

BENCH: J.B. PARDIWALA and R. MAHADEVAN

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 17.10.2025

RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE CASE

  1. Articles 14, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 32 of the Indian Constitution, 1950.
  2. Sections 3, 9, 11, 16, 17 and 22 of the Transgender persons (protection of rights) Act, 2019.
  3. Rules 12 and 13 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Petitioner, Jane Kaushik, is a transgender woman.  She is a qualified teacher. She faced discrimination at two private schools for employment, which are located in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. She got terminated from two schools based on her gender identity as a trans gender. After eight days of service in first private school, she was forced to resign after her gender identity came to known to students. The second private school, after knowing the gender of the Petitioner, denied her entry before she could join the job by withdrawing her employment offer letter. She approached the Supreme Court by a Writ Petition under Article 32.  She prayed for the enforcement of her rights under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

The main reason for this dispute is the negligence of the state authority in exercising their duty to prevent gender based discrimination and non establishment of a grievance redressal mechanism at the schools. 

In this case, the court carefully looked into the struggles faced by the transgender community in employment and education institutions. The Court traced the evolution of transgender rights from the case NALSA v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438, till the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and its Rules in 2020.  The truth is, after the NALSA case and after five years from the 2019 Act, the rights guaranteed to transgender remain “empty formalities” and the benefits are not reached the Transgender persons. 

ISSUES OF THE CASE

  • Whether the government failed to enforce the statutory obligation to protect transgender from gender discrimination?
  • Did two private schools made gender discrimination against the Petitioner?
  • Whether the Petitioner entitled to receive compensation?

PETITIONER ARGUMENT’S

  • The Petitioner argued that the government failed to implement the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and Rules, 2020.
  • Most importantly, the grievance redressal mechanism was not established, which leads to gender based discrimination. Section 11 of the 2019 Act and Rule 13 of the 2020 Rule deals with the grievance redressal mechanism establishment .
  • The petitioner also argued that employment discrimination is violating her fundamental rights under articles 14, 15, 17, 19, 21 and specific breaches of the 2019 Act under Sections 3(b), 3(c), 9, 10(2)(b), Rules 11-12. Therefore, state must prohibit employment discrimination.
  • Further, the Petitioner argued that the termination from the job due to gender identity leads to economic death. The Petitioner claimed that Sections 3 (b) and 9 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, impose positive duties.
  • The Petitioner claimed compensation from schools for violations of fundamental rights and also claimed compensation from the state for its inaction to take necessary steps to enforce the policies.

 RESPONDENT ARGUMENT’S

  • The Respondent (the First private school) argued that there is no valid basis for granting compensation and also claims that the court had no power to interfere with the internal affairs of the private school based on the grounds, a employer – employee relationship. Therefore, this dispute must be inquired by the appropriate forum.
  • The Respondent (second private school) argued that there was no any contract between Petitioner and Respondent, so there is no writ jurisdiction to enforce an employment offer letter. The court had no power to interfere in the administrative decisions of the unaided private school. In addition, the Respondent also argued that Section 3(b) and 9 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, impose only a negative duty on employers and there is no any positive obligations.
  • The Respondent (State) argued that the grievance redressal mechanism were only at their infancy stage and the Petitioner should brought her case before the statutory body.

JUDGEMENT

The Court held that the first school, there is no evidence pointing to intentional discrimination in the Petitioner’s dismissal. But the lack of complaint officers and redressal mechanisms in the first school will be considered an issue. At the Second School, it is a clear recruitment-stage discrimination as her employment offer letter was withdrawn after the identification of Petitioner’s gender identity is an offence under Section 9 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

The Court held that the inaction of the Union and State Governments had allowed non-state entities to disregard statutory obligations, resulting in continued discrimination and marginalisation.

The Court held that by invoking Articles 32 and 142 of the Indian Constitution, the amount Rs.50,000 was paid to the Petitioner as compensation by the second school, the Union of India and two state authorities. The court gives direction for the establishment of a grievance committee and the welfare of transgender community.

The Court further held that “to establish Transgender Protection Cells and complaint officers in all establishments”.  Further, the Court held that the Union Government should constitute to fill the gaps in the act within 6 months by providing equal opportunity and accommodation etc, to the transgender persons. In addition, the Court ordered to constitute a Committee, that must comprise trans gender activists, legal experts, and government officials.

The Court holds the four dimensions of the Constitutional framework:

  • redressing disadvantage,
  • addressing stigma and stereotypes,
  • enhancing voice and participation,
  • accommodating difference for structural change.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The judgment reiterated that the government and private establishments have a positive obligations to prevent discrimination against transgender persons.  The duty of the government to protect transgender rights were guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. 

Therefore, the discrimination against transgender persons can be prevented by the effective implementation of the law, policy by the government.

The legislative and administrative omissions results in systemic discrimination cause violations warranting judicial intervention. Further, the Court directed the establishment of accessible enforcement structures like complaint officers, protection cells and policies ensuring substantive equality, participation, and dignity.

OBITER DICTA

The Court elaborated on “constitutional morality”, which will extend to both government and private establishments. The Court critiquing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, that fails to mandate proactive equality measures. The court also stressed “reasonable accommodation” as an essential for substantive equality after the NALSA judgment case in 2014. Therefore, it needs a formal recognition, systemic gaps and absent sensitization programs. The court also noted bureaucratic “apathy” turning the Act into a “dead letter”.  The Court also directed the states to monitor transgender welfare in education, health, and employment.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the major landmark judgement upholds the gender neutrality. The Government’s mere apathy towards transgender people is a straight-up violation of their rights to equality, livelihood, and dignity.  Ultimately, the court is pushing for real change, aiming to make substantive equality a reality and to give breathing life into the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. This case also highlights that it’s not just the government’s job to protect trans rights, but non-state actors also have a responsibility to protect trans rights. Finally, trans rights are getting some teeth in the 21st century.             

REFERENCES:

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Subscribe
Scroll to Top