Big win for LGBTQ+ Community:  SC Orders Compensation and Policy Directions for Transgender on Wrongful Termination by School

The petitioner, Jane Kaushik, a transgender woman employed as a teacher in a private school in Uttar Pradesh, was terminated after she informed the school authorities of her gender transition. Despite satisfactory service records, she was removed without due process, citing “unsuitability.” Kaushik approached the  High Court under Article 226, which dismissed her petition in 2023, holding that a private unaided school was beyond the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. Aggrieved, she approached the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Kaushik argued that her termination violated Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21, as well as the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. She contended that the right to gender identity and protection from discrimination applied horizontally to private entities, especially in educational and employment settings performing public functions. The Union of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that while anti-discrimination norms under the 2019 Act bind private employers, enforcement mechanisms remain primarily administrative. The school contended that it acted within management rights and that no statutory remedy existed against private unaided institutions.

Issue Raised: Whether a private educational institution can be held liable for unlawful termination and discrimination against a transgender employee, and whether the Court can grant enforceable remedies in the absence of a specific service statute.

SC Held: The Supreme Court held that the constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 15(1) extends to all persons and is enforceable even against non-State actors performing functions of public importance, such as education. Relying upon NALSA v. Union of India (2014) and Deepika Singh v. CAT (2022), the Court reaffirmed that gender identity and dignity form inseparable components of Article 21. The 2019 Act prohibits discrimination in employment by any establishment, public or private, and mandates a redressal mechanism through designated complaints officers.

The Court found Kaushik’s termination to be an act of discrimination based solely on her gender identity. It rejected the school’s claim of managerial autonomy, observing that educational institutions discharge public functions and must comply with constitutional and statutory mandates of equality.

The school was directed to pay Rs. 5 lakh compensation within eight weeks for violation of fundamental and statutory rights. The State of Uttar Pradesh was instructed to ensure the reinstatement of Kaushik in a government-aided or private school within three months. The Union and all States/UTs were directed to issue binding guidelines to all educational institutions and private employers:

• Prohibiting discrimination against transgender employees;
• Requiring appointment of a Complaints Officer under Section 11 of the 2019 Act;
• Incorporating inclusive recruitment, sanitation, and workplace policies.
• The National Council for Transgender Persons was tasked to monitor implementation and file a compliance report within six months.

The Court stressed that denial of livelihood based on gender transition violates the constitutional fabric and cannot be justified on institutional autonomy or parental sensitivity grounds.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below.