Case Law Details
CA Sandeep Kanoi
In a historic move, the Supreme Court on Tuesday granted legal recognition to transgenders as ‘third gender’ as a mandate of social justice in response to writy filed by National Legal Services Authority . The apex court ordered the Center and the states to recognize transgenders as a class apart from male and female.
By recognizing TGs as third gender, Supreme Court is pholdind the rule of law and also also advances justice to the transgenders, so far deprived of their legitimate natural and constitutional rights. It is, therefore, the only just solution which ensures justice not only to TGs but also justice to the society as well. Social justice does not mean equality before law in papers but to translate the spirit of the Constitution, enshrined in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy into action, whose arms are long enough to bring within its reach and embrace this right of recognition to the TGs which legitimately belongs to them.
According them the legal recognition as the “third gender”, the Supreme Court ruled that transgenders will be treated as a socially and economically backward class for being given various special rights.
Supreme Court has further held as follows :-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
Some thoughts (sans profound spiritualism or socialism)
By and large, almost every concept, particularly, ‘ideas,- be it abstract or general, as per dic. meaning- as strikingly opposed to ‘ideals’ (the only letter ‘l’ making all the difference),has continued to be continuously and with no let-up tinkered or tampered with according to individualistic sweet will and pleasure (or whims and fancies !). Nonetheless, the instant case makes for a further deviation or departure in that, a new ‘gender’ has come to be created ,- not by the so-commonly-believed whole and sole super power, name it invisible CREATOR of the universe or any other,- by the judiciary vested with powers to ‘adjudicate’. May be,if perceived differently,but in a varied stroke, the court has to be regarded to have simply underscored the personal right of every human to choose and have his own way of conduct or outlook on life; obviously in acknowledging the root reality that no amount of external influence or force/ pressure, by legislating or otherwise, could work effectively to bring about any change whatsoever, or make an iota of reformation of an individual ‘mindset’ – which again is traceable only to the creator , none else.