Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed to quash the Government Order, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, dated 06-04-2015, issued by the State and consequently direct the State to provide for horizontal reservation to the transgender community in compliance of the judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, , G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J. has held that a trans person will be classified as MBC and if they belongs to SC/SC (Arunthathiyar)/ST, they will get the benefit of their community certificate instead of being MBC. However, in both these scenarios of being either MBC or SC/SC (Arunthathiyar) / ST, the trans person will have to be clubbed with either the women of that class or the men of that class. Hence, they don’t get protection for their transgender identity. Further, the Court said that as the transgender identity is a gender identity like man or woman, thus it is manifestly arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 to give woman horizontal reservation and treat transgender persons similar to men.
Thus, the Court quashed the impugned Government Order for being manifestly arbitrary and thereby, violative of Articles , , , and of , and also directed the State to provide horizontal reservation to the transgender community in compliance of the above said Judgment, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Background:
The petitioner is a Transgender and had registered with the Tamil Nadu Transgender Welfare Board. She was also issued with an identity card. She is qualified with B.Sc Nursing and got registered with the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council though the reservation was accorded for transgender, it was provided under the category Most Backward Class (‘MBC’) and provided vertical reservation, treating the transgender community as a caste, instead of horizontal reservation by treating transgender as gender identity.
The Court said that the Government Order impugned in this writ petition was passed on the basis of the recommendation issued by the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission and the Judgment of the Supreme Court , in the case of NALSA (supra) and the Supreme Court recognized the legal identification for the transgender as third gender and directed the State to take necessary steps to treat the transgender community as social and educationally backward classes of citizens.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the Government passed another order in Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 22-12-2017 and clarified that the third gender candidates who do not possess any community certificate, may be considered under MBC as per Government order, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, dated 06-04-2015.
The Court noted that as per the said order, the third gender candidates who belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar)/Scheduled Tribe communities and possess community certificate may be considered as per their respective community. The third gender candidates who belong to the communities other than Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar)/Scheduled Tribe communities and possess community certificate may be considered as per their own community as MBC whichever is advantageous to them as per their option and once the individual exercises option for community selection it should be crystallized and this option should not be changed in future. Thus, the Court said that the petitioner may not have any grievance and she can very well apply as per her community.
After taking note of NALSA (supra), the Court said that there is gender right to decide their self-identified gender as male, female or third gender.
Further, the Court directed both the State and Central Governments to take steps to treat them as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments.
After taking note of the impugned order, the Court noted that if the petitioner choose to assert her identity as a transgender person, she has to forego the constitutional protections which she has as a Scheduled Caste person. Therefore, the Court said that it is manifestly arbitrary, as like every other person in India, the degree of discrimination faced by an individual is an intersection of their gender identity and caste identity. The discrimination faced by a Dalit woman is the result of intersecting identities of being a woman from the Dalit caste. This will be lesser than the discrimination faced by an upper caste woman. Similarly, the discrimination faced by a transgender Dalit person is worse than the discrimination faced by an upper caste transgender person. Therefore, any reservation provided to the transgender will not be effective unless this intersection of these identities is addressed.
Thus, the Court said that the Government order dated 22-12-2017, did not address grievance of the petitioner. Further, the implementation of the Judgment in NALSA (supra) has not been done properly. The Court said that transgender is a gender identity and only horizontal reservation can be granted to give effect to the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India.
Thus, the Court held that a trans person will be classified as MBC and if they belong to SC/SC (Arunthathiyar) / ST, they will get the benefit of their community certificate instead of being MBC. However, in both these scenarios of being either MBC or SC/SC (Arunthathiyar) / ST, the trans person will have to be clubbed with either the women of that class or the men of that class. Hence, they don’t get protection for their transgender identity.
The Court also noted that Government Order dated 22-12-2017 was provided by way of executive instructions and said that the implementation of an Act cannot be limited by way of executive instructions. Therefore, when the amendment to the Act does not restrict the classification to trans persons belonging to communities other than SC/SC (Arunthathiyar) / ST, it cannot be limited by way of a Government Order.
The Court said that since there can be no discrimination based on sex, transgender community has been discriminated and is thus a socially and educationally backward class. Hence, the Court directed the State to provide reservation to the third gender.
Further, the Court said that if once gender identity is given horizontal reservation, it follows that the transgender community, being a socially and educationally backward community discriminated based on gender identity, should also be entitled to similar reservation.
[Rakshika Raj v State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.No.6967 of 2022, Order dated 08-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate N.S.Tanvi
For Respondents: Additional Government Pleader E.Vijay Anand
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .