This case is significant not only for transgender persons’ reservation rights post the 2019 enactment but also for settling an important constitutional question: what is the status of un-legislated Supreme Court directions?Continue reading
Category Archives: NALSA
Veera Yadav v The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar and Ors (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5627 of 2020)
1. The Petition
This case followed the S. Sushma style of continuing mandamus issued by the court to monitor the progress on the NALSA directives, among other things. The cause of action was the denial of rations to certain portions of the transgender community during COVID. The petition, filed in the High Court of Patna in May 2020, prayed for 25 kgs. of rations for all members of the transgender community, monetary assistance for six months’ rent, a speedy grievance redressal system, and a one-stop facilitation centre. In this blog, I will summarise the proceedings under this petition.Continue reading
The blog has now transitioned to a bi-monthly blog. The next post will be available in September 2022.
Matman Gangabhavani v State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors WP No 16770 of 2019 (AP High Court)
Does a public appointment advertisement that fails to include transgender persons violate the constitution and offend the NALSA reservation direction? A single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was faced with this particular question in this instance. Summarily, he found that though such advertisement offends equality, it does not violate the NALSA reservation direction because of certain context specific reasons. In this blog, I will deal with the equality analysis and the reservation analysis of the court.Continue reading
S.Sushma v. DGP, Tamil Nadu and Ors WP No. 7281/2021 (August 2021 Hearing)
The August Order
In this blogpost, I will provide an update on the subsequent hearings in the S. Sushma case. Summarily, that case concerned a lesbian couple who had run away from their homes and had filed a writ of mandamus in the Madras High Court seeking protection from harassment, both, from the police, and their parents. The court had ordered accordingly (‘June Order’). A detailed discussion of that order is here. Further, the court had also issued certain directions to the police, centre and state authorities, and various regulatory bodies. The court treated the case as a continuing mandamus and provided a future date to check up on the implementation of its directions.
In the next few blogposts, I will scrutinize what came to pass in those subsequent hearings. This blogpost concerns the hearing on 31st August, 2021.Continue reading
This blog is on a break and will return with postings from November 2021
This blog is on break as no new cases have been reported since the last post, on either Manupatra or SCC Online. The blog shall return on the 10th of June, 2021.
Sumana Pramanik v. The Union of India and Ors. WPA 9187 of 2020
On the 2nd of February 2021, a single judge of the Calcutta High Court, through a writ of mandamus, directed the administrators of the Joint CSIR-UGC NET examination to institute certain affirmative action measures for transgender candidates. The examination is a means to determine eligibility for Junior Research Fellowships and Lectureships/Assistant Professorships at Indian Universities.Continue reading
This blog is on break and shall resume with monthly postings from 10th Feb, 2021
CL v. The State of Karnataka
On the 1st of October, a single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court ruled that a transgender person does not have to get a District Magistrate’s certificate to request a name and gender change on their documents, even if they make the request after the coming into effect of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, so long as they have their identity recorded prior to the Act becoming operational.Continue reading