In a significant judgment aimed at addressing persistent discrimination against transgender persons, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Union government to frame an “equal opportunity policy” within three months of receiving recommendations from a newly constituted advisory panel, observing that the rights guaranteed under existing law have been “brutishly reduced to dead letters”.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan expressed deep concern that, despite the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and corresponding Rules of 2020, the community continues to face marginalisation, exclusion, and systemic neglect.

“The community continues to face discrimination and marginalisation, with a scarcity of healthcare, economic opportunities and non-inclusive educational policies adding to their struggles,” the Bench observed.

Describing the attitude of both the Centre and states as “grossly apathetic”, the court said it was disheartening that more than a decade after its 2014 judgment in the NALSA case — which recognised the right to self-identify gender — the transgender community still has to seek repeated judicial intervention to enforce even basic protections.

The judges observed that the statutory safeguards provided under the 2019 Act had largely remained unimplemented. “Systemic barriers like the absence of the option of a ‘third gender’ make the entry of transgender persons in the organised workforce impossible,” the Bench noted.

“Even if they are hired, they are expected to keep their identity hidden, which is grossly violative of one’s right to dignity under Article 21,” it said, stressing that discrimination in workplaces and professional spaces continued despite the law being in force for over five years.

The judgment came on a petition filed by a transgender woman who alleged that she had been humiliated and dismissed from two private schools in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat because of her gender identity. The court directed the Centre, the UP and Gujarat governments, and the school in Gujarat to each pay Rs 50,000 in compensation for the discrimination she suffered.

To ensure systemic reform, the Bench appointed an advisory committee headed by former Delhi High Court judge Asha Menon to draft recommendations for an equal opportunity framework.

“The issue at hand requires a more incisive study by a dedicated committee, well-equipped to recommend a viable equal opportunity policy that ought to be introduced by the Union and state governments, as well as provide insightful suggestions on other aspects affecting the lives of the transgender community,” the court said.

The committee has been asked to prepare its report within six months. The Centre, in turn, must adopt and implement an equal opportunity policy within three months of receiving the panel’s report. If any establishment fails to frame its own policy, the Union policy will automatically apply to it, the court ruled.

Exercising its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court issued a set of binding directions to strengthen the protection of transgender persons nationwide. These include:

• Designating an appellate authority in every state and Union territory as required under Rule 9 of the 2020 Rules, before which transgender persons may appeal against decisions of the district magistrate.

• Setting up a Transgender Welfare Board in every state and UT to monitor welfare schemes and safeguard the community’s rights.

• Establishing a Transgender Protection Cell in each district, under the charge of the district magistrate, and a corresponding cell at the state level under the director general of police, to track and prosecute offences against transgender persons.

“The Union of India and all the states shall ensure that the aforesaid directions are strictly complied with within a period of three months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment,” the Bench said.

It also directed the government to introduce a nationwide toll-free helpline to report violations of the 2019 Act.

The court said it was “disheartened” to note that many provisions of both the 2019 Act and the 2020 Rules remain “mere aspirations on paper”, despite being framed in mandatory terms. The verdict, spanning 177 pages, offers a comprehensive review of institutional shortcomings and prescribes corrective mechanisms.

Among its recommendations, the Bench suggested that the Centre formulate explicit guidelines ensuring that no transwoman is arrested without the presence of a female officer.

The judges further noted that transgender persons face daily challenges within public institutions — from schools and hospitals to transport hubs and government offices — owing to the absence of inclusive measures or “reasonable accommodation”.

“Security check-ins at airports, Metro stations, bus stands, sea ports, workplaces, shopping complexes, malls, cinema halls, and other public spaces may create special gender diverse screening points for transgender persons along with the sensitisation of security personnel at such security checks,” the Bench said.

The court also urged all establishments to cultivate gender-inclusive environments and ensure that transgender persons are free to express their identity “without fear or stigma”.

While the 2019 law was meant to operationalise the rights recognised in the 2014 NALSA judgment, Friday’s ruling signals judicial impatience with bureaucratic inertia. The court’s sharp language — referring to the law as “brutishly reduced to dead letters” — underscores its frustration with the gulf between legislative intent and implementation.

Legal experts said the verdict could force both the Centre and states to take measurable steps toward enforcement, shifting transgender rights from symbolic acknowledgment to administrative accountability and social inclusion.

With PTI inputs