Delhi High Court Raps Centre For Failing To Respond To Pleas Seeking Implementation Of Rights Under Transgender Persons Act
The Delhi High Court has expressed displeasure with the Central Government for failing to respond to a batch of petitions seeking implementation of the rights under the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
A division bench comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal was dealing with three petitions filed in 2017 and 2019 by Riya Sharma, Aarav Singh and Raghav P R.
The Court said that the least that was expected from the Central Government was to submit its response, noting that till date no steps were taken to file any reply in the matter.
“This would have prompted this Court to set a cost on the Secretary of the Central Government for not submitting its response in such sensitive matters,” the Court said.
However, at the request of Centre's counsel, the Court granted the Union of India one last chance to submit its response in all the three petitions within four weeks, irrespective of whether it is a party to the pleas or not.
“We make it clear that advance copy of the response be made available to the respective counsels appearing for the parties to the petitions, who shall also be permitted to place their counter to the same within a period of two weeks thereafter,” the Court said.
The petitioners were either transgender within the meaning of the Act or had undergone a change of gender claiming entitlement to benefits, having undergone such a change prior to the enactment coming into force.
It was their case that the authorities were not complying with the statutory mandate provided under the Rules framed under the Act, thereby failing to effect the necessary changes in their official documents. It was also contended that the authorities were conducting themselves contrary to the various provisions of the statute.
Court's attention was drawn to Rule 7(6) which provides that for change in the gender, the name or photograph of transgender person in the official documents is revised based on certificate of identity.
As per the Rule, the said official document shall bear the same serial or reference number as in the original official document of such transgender person, who seeks change in the name or gender or both in the official documents.
The petitioners relied on the guidelines issued by the National Institute of Social Defence, which fall within the supervision of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
It was claimed that the guidelines provide for the re-issuance of the certificate i.e. official document, by incorporating changes.
On this, the Court noted that a National Council under the Act is a National Council established under Section 16, which is empowered to advise the Central Government on the formulation of policies, programmes, legislation and projects with respect to transgender.
It said that the Central Government is required to have the advice from the National Council, which in turn is required to discharge the functions in accordance with Section 17 of the Act.
The Bench further noted that Rule 14 contemplates the functions to be discharged by the National Council and that the National Institute of Social Defence is required to provide secretarial assistance to the National Council in conduct of its meeting and facilities.
“It is not clear as to whether the power to extend secretarial assistance conferred on National Institute of Social Defence, which issued the guidelines on 27th October 2023, were duly approved by the National Council and accepted by the Central Government. Furthermore, Rule 13 of the Rules provides for grievance redressal mechanism,” the Court said.
Granting last opportunity to the Centre to respond to the petitions, the Bench listed the matter for hearing next on November 20.
Title: RIYA SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS & other connected matters