The Supreme Court in the case Jane Kaushik vs. Union Of India observed and has expressed concerns over the treatment meted out to a transgender teacher who had been terminated from her appointment by the two private schools in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh.
The bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud was hearing the writ petition filed by the teacher challenging her termination, expressed, that something has to be done for her, the moment she gets employed, she is terminated on the grounds that she is a transgender, Uttar Pradesh did it, Gujarat did it.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before the court that the issue of social stigma that the teacher had been facing in the women’s hostel and how the school environment has been unwelcoming the sexual identity of her.
The court stated that though the management was aware that she is a transwoman, she had been living with the students in the women’s hostel, but the moment it is out that she is a transwoman and they terminate her. The said issue is that this is a learnt behaviour. Thus, they cannot accept the fact that she is a transwoman.
Further, it has been stated that as per the petitioner, the school has now been giving excuses that she was not punctual and had anger issues as a ground for termination.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the state of Gujarat submitted before the Court that while the school did offer her a job, the petitioner never responded to the offer. Thus, the State Authorities also seek the report of the same.
It has also been submitted by the counsel appearing for the Private School that there was an offer letter that was handed over to her, pursuant to which she had to come for verification of documents, only post that her joining had to start, but then the verification took place and her identity was disclosed.
The counsel stated that, your lordships I will have to take instructions if this was the ground. I am told that simply on the grounds of her being transgender was not being the reason why was I not allowed to join. Further, it has also been informed by the bench that the petitioner has filed a similar plea before the Delhi High Court which has been pending since the year 2022. Thus, she challenged her refusal of appointment by another school in Delhi.The counsel appearing for the petitioner countered this by submitting that the offer letter was an unconditional one, and when the petitioner was called to Jamnagar for verification of documents, she stayed in a hotel at her own expense.
Facts of the Case:
The Supreme Court in the case issued the notice wherein the writ petition is moved by a transgender teacher whose appointment was allegedly terminated in two different schools in both Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh upon revelation of her gender identity on January 02, 2024.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in the case observed and has directed the notice to be served to the Union of India, the State Governments, and the schools in order to seek their response on the matter.
The court also referred to the case National Legal Services Authority, NALSA v. Union of India & Ors, wherein the supreme court recognised the transgenders as the third sex.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice AK Sikri in the case observed that the nonexistence of law recognizing the transgender as a third gender could not be continued as a ground to discriminate against them in availing equal opportunities in education and employment.
