## Facts

- Public-interest petitions sought constitutional protection and legal recognition for transgender persons, including Hijras, Kinnars, and other gender-variant communities.
- Petitioners alleged pervasive discrimination in education, employment, healthcare, housing, and access to public spaces due to official classification limited to “male” and “female.”
- Petitioners contended that non-recognition of gender identity violated equality, non-discrimination, free expression, and dignity and autonomy guarantees under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.
- Requested relief included: (i) official recognition of transgender persons as a “third gender,” (ii) legal acceptance of self-identified gender, and (iii) state-directed welfare measures, including reservations in education and public employment.
- The matter was heard under the Supreme Court’s original writ jurisdiction on petitions asserting violations of fundamental rights.

## Issues

1. Whether transgender persons are entitled to legal recognition as a gender distinct from male and female.
2. Whether self-identified gender identity must be legally recognized without requiring biological or medical criteria.
3. Whether denial of recognition and resulting discrimination violate rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(a), and 21.
4. Whether the Constitution requires affirmative state measures, including reservations and welfare schemes, for transgender persons.

## Decision

- The Court allowed the petitions and held that transgender persons are entitled to recognition as a “third gender” for legal and official purposes.
- The Court held that gender identity is primarily determined by self-identification, not by medical procedures or biological tests.
- The Court held that transgender persons fall within “any person” for Article 14 and must receive equal protection in all spheres of state activity, including education, employment, and healthcare.
- The Court held that discrimination based on gender identity is prohibited under Articles 15 and 16 as discrimination “on the ground of sex” interpreted to include gender identity.
- The Court held that Article 19(1)(a) protects expression of self-identified gender, including non-verbal expression such as dress, behavior, and mannerisms.
- The Court held that Article 21 protects dignity, privacy, and personal autonomy, including the right to determine and express one’s gender identity.
- The Court directed governments to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes for purposes of reservations in education and public employment, and to implement welfare and healthcare measures.
- The Court directed the State to develop appropriate policies and legislation to protect transgender persons’ rights.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional equality protections apply to transgender persons as “persons,” requiring equal protection across state functions and services.
- “Sex” discrimination prohibitions extend to discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.
- Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to express one’s self-identified gender, including through non-verbal conduct.
- The right to life and personal liberty includes dignity, privacy, bodily integrity, and decisional autonomy concerning gender identity.
- Legal recognition of gender identity must be based on self-identification; compulsory medicalization is inconsistent with constitutional autonomy and dignity.
- Fundamental rights can impose affirmative obligations on the State to remedy historical exclusion through reservations, targeted welfare, and access to healthcare and public facilities.
- In the absence of specific legislation, constitutional rights may be construed consistently with applicable international human rights norms.

## Conclusion

The Court constitutionalized legal recognition of transgender persons, including a third gender category, required acceptance of self-identified gender, and mandated both anti-discrimination enforcement and affirmative governmental measures to secure equal citizenship and dignified living conditions.


Nat'l Legal Servs. Auth. v. Union of India, (2014) 5 S.C.C. 438 (India 2014)