Facts
Jane Kaushik, a transgender woman and qualified teacher, faced persistent discrimination despite her academic achievements. After completing her postgraduate and teacher training degrees, she joined a private school in Uttar Pradesh (“First School”) in November 2022. Within eight days, she suffered severe harassment from colleagues and students and was pressured to hide her gender identity. When she sought help, the school instead forced her to resign, falsely citing poor performance. A subsequent defamation notice and rejection of her re-employment requests worsened her ordeal. In 2023, Jane was offered a teaching job at another school in Gujarat (“Second School”), but upon revealing her transgender identity, she was denied entry and the offer was withdrawn without explanation. Her legal notices went unanswered. Jane then sought recourse through statutory and national bodies under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, but found the grievance mechanisms ineffective or inactive. Even the National Commission for Women dismissed her complaint, focusing on her performance rather than discrimination. Her case, now before the Supreme Court, underscores the gap between the legal promises of equality and dignity for transgender persons and the continued societal and institutional discrimination they face in India.
Issues
Whether a positive obligation is cast upon the Union of India and the States respectively, under the Constitution of India and the 2019 Act along with the Rules thereunder to prevent discrimination against transgender persons?
Whether the inaction and omissions on part of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 respectively led to discrimination against the petitioner?
Whether the actions and inactions of the First School and the Second School respectively have led to discrimination against the petitioner on the ground of her gender identity?
If the answer to issues (b) and (c) are in the affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation?
Legal Provisions
- Article 14, Constitution of India – Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
- Article 15, Constitution of India – Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex (interpreted to include gender identity), or place of birth.
- Article 21, Constitution of India – Protects the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to dignity.
- Section 3, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 – Prohibits discrimination against transgender persons in education, employment, healthcare, and other spheres.
- Section 9, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 – Specifically prohibits discrimination in employment, including recruitment and promotion.
- Rule 12, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 – Mandates every establishment to maintain a safe and non-discriminatory workplace and to publish an Equal Opportunity Policy for transgender persons
Arguments
Petitioner
Jane Kaushik, through her counsel, argued that both the First School and Second School subjected her to direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of her gender identity. She was forced to resign and denied employment solely because she is a transgender woman, violating her rights under Articles 14, 15, 17, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The discrimination deprived her of the means to earn a livelihood and amounted to “economic death” for a member of a marginalized group. The petitioner relied on landmark judgments (such as NALSA v. Union of India AIR 2014 SC 1863 and (2014) 5 SCC 438, Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India 2021 INSC 210 and Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1) to argue that equality includes affirmative action and reasonable accommodation, not just formal equal treatment but measures that recognize and rectify systemic marginalization.
Respondent
The First School (Respondent 5) contended that Jane Kaushik’s termination was based solely on her professional performance and institutional needs, not her gender identity. The school claimed her resignation was voluntary and that it had accommodated her by providing suitable hostel and washroom facilities. It further noted that she was offered a chance for reassessment and reemployment, which she missed due to personal reasons. Dismissing allegations of harassment as exaggerated or isolated, the school relied on the National Commission for Women’s inquiry report, which found no discrimination. Consequently, the school argued that no compensation or Supreme Court intervention was justified, asserting that employment issues in private unaided schools do not fall within the scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction.
The Second Respondent (State authority) argued that they have taken steps to comply with statutory requirements for protection of transgender rights and inclusion, pointing to existing policies and administrative frameworks under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. They maintained that implementation shortcomings were not intentional or malicious, but due to systemic challenges and bureaucratic delays, which are being continuously addressed.
Analysis
The Supreme Court critically analyzed both the lived realities and legal protections for transgender persons in India. The Court observed that, despite progressive constitutional and statutory guarantees, actual implementation remains superficial, with widespread apathy from authorities and non-state actors alike. The judgment highlighted the gap between “rights on paper” and real inclusion, stressing that reasonable accommodation and substantive equality require active measures, not just formal prohibitions on discrimination. Both direct and systemic discrimination were acknowledged, and the need for robust enforcement and compensation for violations was underscored as essential for protecting the dignity and rights of the transgender community
Judgement
The Supreme Court, in this landmark judgment, held that Jane Kaushik was indeed subjected to discrimination based on her gender identity in violation of her fundamental and statutory rights, especially by the Second School which denied her employment after discovering she is a transgender woman. The Court found that both the State and private actors had failed in their duty to provide an inclusive, non-discriminatory workplace and had not implemented mandatory protections under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and the 2020 Rules. The Court criticized the persistent administrative lethargy and lack of effective grievance redressal for transgender persons, noting the gap between statutory rights and reality. As a result, the Court awarded compensation of ₹50,000 each from the Second School and State authorities to Jane and directed the Union of India to deposit ₹10 lakh for creating an Equal Opportunity Policy committee. Further, all respondents were ordered to demonstrate compliance with legal duties related to transgender inclusion. The judgment powerfully reaffirmed the enforceability of transgender rights and the judiciary’s power to award compensation for violations when statutory and administrative remedies fail.
Conclusion
This judgement serves as a stark reminder that discrimination of transgender exists despite several statutory reforms undertaken in India. Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and Rules, 2020 are not met due to bureaucracy and governmental apathy. As a remedy, the Court awarded compensation to the petitioner, directed establishment of a national Equal Opportunity Policy committee, and ordered all respondents to demonstrate compliance with transgender protections and inclusion.
Click here to read more: JANE KAUSHIK v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY S. KAVIYA SRI
