Archive · 12 Nov 2025
Supreme Court Recognizes Transgender Rights in Employment Discrimination Case
Imagine a teacher named Jane who is a transgender woman.
Two schools wouldn't let her teach just because she is transgender, even though she is very qualified.
This made her lose jobs and money, and she had to leave her home.
So, Jane took these schools to the big court in India, the Supreme Court.
The court said that it's wrong for schools and companies to not hire someone because they are transgender.
The court ordered the schools to give Jane some money to help her out.
They also said the government should make new rules to make sure this doesn't happen again.
While Jane is happy the court said this is wrong, she feels the money isn't enough because she lost so much.
She hopes this big court decision will help other transgender people find jobs more easily in the future.
A transgender woman, Jane Kaushik, filed a case after being forced to quit jobs at two private schools due to her gender identity.
The Supreme Court ruled that private enterprises are not allowed to discriminate against transgender persons in employment.
The court ordered the two schools and their respective state governments to pay Jane Kaushik Rs 50,000 each as compensation.
An advisory committee was appointed to assess the implementation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
Jane Kaushik expressed disappointment with the compensation amount, feeling it is insufficient given her financial losses and struggles.
- Who
- Jane Kaushik, a transgender woman, and two private schools
- What
- Supreme Court ruled against employment discrimination based on gender identity and ordered compensation.
- When
- Complaints filed starting in 2022, culminating in a Supreme Court decision on October 17, 2023.
- Where
- Supreme Court of India, involving schools in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat.
- Why
- Jane Kaushik was forced to resign from teaching positions due to her gender identity, leading to legal action against the discriminating schools.
Petitioner's Perspective
Supreme Court's Decision
Compensation Adequacy
Petitioner's Perspective
Jane Kaushik feels the Rs 50,000 compensation from each entity is insufficient, stating she lost lakhs in potential earnings and that it's not enough to sustain her.
Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court ordered a Rs 50,000 compensation each from the two schools and the respective state governments for the discrimination faced.
Inclusion on Advisory Committee
Petitioner's Perspective
Dipika Jain noted that the SC-appointed committee lacks trans men and trans lawyers, which is not ideal.
Supreme Court's Decision
The SC appointed an advisory committee to assess the implementation of the Transgender Persons Act, including notable trans women and activists.
Government Action on Policy
Petitioner's Perspective
Jane Kaushik criticizes the bureaucratic and political unwillingness to address issues like the lack of a transgender welfare board and grievance redressal mechanisms.
Supreme Court's Decision
The SC recommended a 'viable equal opportunity policy' to be introduced by Union and state governments within three months and made enforceable for establishments lacking their own guidelines.
- Petitioner
- Jane Kaushik, a 32-year-old transgender woman and former school teacher
- Discriminating Schools
- Two private schools in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat
- Date of Verdict
- October 17, 2023 (reported date)
- Key Supreme Court Directives
- Private enterprises cannot discriminate against trans persons; compensation ordered; advisory committee appointed; equal opportunity policy recommended.
- Compensation Amount
- Rs 50,000 each from the two schools and respective state governments
- Legal Basis
- Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and Rules (2020), NALSA judgment (2014)