Question 1

Writ petitions under Article 32 for fundamental right violations can only be filed against the State or government bodies.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court reinforced that writ jurisdiction applies 'horizontally' against private establishments discharging public functions (like education), especially concerning core anti-discrimination and dignity rights.

Question 2

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 only mandates anti-discrimination rules for government workplaces.

Accepted Answer

Section 9 of the 2019 Act explicitly prohibits discrimination in employment by ANY establishment, public or private, and mandates the designation of complaints officers across the board.

Question 3

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's directives in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India (2025):
1. The Court held that private unaided schools are exempt from the anti-discrimination provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
2. The Court extended the principle of 'reasonable accommodation', traditionally used in disability law, to transgender persons.
3. The Union and State governments were held liable for 'omissive discrimination' for failing to implement statutory redressal mechanisms.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

(b) Only two — Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court explicitly held that private unaided schools ARE bound by the 2019 Act and constitutional anti-discrimination mandates through the horizontal application of rights. Statements 2 and 3 are correct; the Court applied the reasonable accommodation doctrine to gender identity and penalized the State for omissive discrimination.

Question 4

Match the following landmark cases/committees (List I) with their primary subject matter (List II):
List I:
A. NALSA v. Union of India (2014)
B. Justice Asha Menon Committee (2025)
C. Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016)
D. Jane Kaushik v. Union of India (2025)

List II:
1. Drafting a national Equal Opportunity Policy for transgender persons
2. Recognition of the 'Third Gender' and right to self-identification
3. Horizontal application of rights against private employers for transgender persons
4. Establishing the principle of Reasonable Accommodation in disability rights

Accepted Answer

(a) A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3 — NALSA (2014) is the foundational case recognizing the third gender (A-2). The Justice Asha Menon Committee was set up by the SC in 2025 to draft an Equal Opportunity Policy (B-1). Jeeja Ghosh is a landmark case for disability rights and reasonable accommodation, which the SC borrowed from in 2025 (C-4). Jane Kaushik (2025) dealt with the horizontal application of anti-discrimination rights in private employment (D-3).

Question 5

Assertion (A): In the Jane Kaushik judgment, the Supreme Court awarded monetary compensation to the petitioner payable by both the private school and the State under its writ jurisdiction.
Reason (R): The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 expressly contains a provision that mandates a fixed statutory fine of ₹50,000 payable to the victim by any employer who terminates a transgender employee.

Accepted Answer

(c) A is true but R is false. — The Assertion is true; the Supreme Court invoked its constitutional powers under Articles 32 and 142 to award compensation as a public law remedy for the violation of fundamental rights. The Reason is false; the 2019 Act does NOT contain a specific provision for a fixed ₹50,000 compensation payable to the victim for termination. The compensation was awarded as a constitutional remedy, not a statutory fine under the Act.

SC Directives for Transgender Rights Enforcement

India-UAE Exercise Desert Cyclone-II Concludes