National Legal Services Authority Case (2014)
– Rights of Transgender Persons
Background of the Case
Transgender persons in India—including Hijras and Eunuchs—had historically faced:
→ Social exclusion and stigma
→ Lack of legal recognition of gender identity
→ Systematic denial of education, employment, healthcare, and dignity
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) filed a petition seeking:
→ Legal recognition of transgender identity
→ Enforcement of Fundamental Rights for transgender persons
Core Constitutional Questions
- Are transgender persons entitled to Fundamental Rights under Part III?
- Does the Constitution recognise gender identity beyond male and female?
- Is self-identification of gender protected under Article 21?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Supreme Court delivered a transformative and rights-expansive verdict.
(a) Recognition of “Third Gender”
The Court held that:
- Transgender persons constitute a “third gender”
- Hijras and Eunuchs fall within this category
- The binary understanding of gender (male/female) is constitutionally inadequate
Thus, Gender is not merely biological, but also psychological and social.
(b) Fundamental Rights Fully Applicable
The Court declared that:
- All Fundamental Rights under Part III apply equally to transgender persons
- Any exclusion amounts to constitutional discrimination
Specifically, Non-recognition violates Article 14 (equality before law)
(c) Right to Self-Identified Gender
A landmark holding of the case was that:
- Gender identity is a matter of self-determination
- Every person has the right to be recognised as → Male, or Female, or Third gender
The Court held that:
Gender identity lies at the core of personal autonomy and dignity.
This right flows directly from Article 21.
(d) Gender Identity as an Aspect of Dignity
The Court observed that:
- Gender identity is integral to → Human dignity, Personal autonomy, Self-expression
Denial of recognition → Violates the right to life with dignity under Article 21
(e) Reservation and Affirmative Action
The Court directed the Central and State Governments to:
- Treat transgender persons as → Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
- Extend:
- Reservation in educational institutions
- Reservation in public employment
This linked substantive equality with affirmative action.
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Expanded Article 14 to include gender identity
- Gave a substantive meaning to Article 21 (dignity, autonomy, self-determination)
- Moved Indian constitutional law from:
- Formal equality → Transformative equality
- Recognised identity as a constitutional right
Impact of the Judgement
(a) Legislative Response – 2019 Act
The judgment led to the enactment of → Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019
Key features:
- Prohibition of discrimination
- Right to recognition as transgender
- Right to self-perceived gender identity
- Welfare measures and social inclusion
(b) Foundation for Later Judgments
The NALSA case became the doctrinal base for:
- Puttaswamy Case (2017) – privacy and autonomy
- Navtej Singh Johar Case (2018) – sexual orientation and dignity
Place in Article 21 Evolution
| Case | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Personal liberty expanded |
| NALSA (2014) | Identity & dignity recognised |
| Puttaswamy (2017) | Privacy & autonomy affirmed |
Summary
The NALSA Case (2014) recognised transgender persons as a third gender, upheld their right to self-identified gender, applied Fundamental Rights equally, directed affirmative action, and anchored gender identity within dignity and autonomy under Article 21.