The Madras High Court directed Tamil Nadu to frame a rehabilitation plan ensuring self-employment, sustainable livelihood, and meaningful inclusion for transgender persons. It observed that “Transgenders are also children of god,” urging dignity, respect, and stronger social acceptance.
The Madras High Court instructed the Tamil Nadu government to develop a detailed rehabilitation plan for transgender people, with an emphasis on self-employment, long-term livelihood support, and their active and meaningful participation in society.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to YouTuber V. Sarathkumar, who was booked under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for sharing a video about the self-immolation of a transgender person inside a police station.
Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan passed the order after reviewing the video and noting that the petitioner had only retransmitted information already published by other media outlets.
The petitioner argued that he did not originate the content, that no harmful material was found in the transmission, that he had removed the video immediately after realising its nature, and that his mobile phone had already been seized, so there was no requirement for custodial interrogation.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea by alleging that the petitioner had circulated false information against the police and the Government and had created a misleading narrative that grievances of the transgender community were not being addressed, while also pointing to complaints of illegal money collection by some individuals.
The Court examined the pen drive containing the video and found that the allegation was confined only to the retransmission of existing news. It observed that several media houses had already published similar information before the petitioner shared it.
Considering the nature of the accusation, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, daily reporting to police for fifteen days, and instructions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
While dealing with the bail plea, the Court delivered an extensive reflection on the condition of transgender persons in society.
The order stated,
“Transgenders are also children of god. On the flip side, Transgenders screenout their nuts and kooks. Transgenders are tolerate ambiguity and recognize their originality and distinguished ‘productive weirdness’. Transgenders are more apt to regard themselves as carriers of talent, instruments of the transpersonal.”
The Court said that transgender persons are not outsiders to the nation’s social fabric and that the real tragedy lies not in their birth but in “the blindness of society which, by exclusion and prejudice, has driven them into conditions of extreme marginalization such as being driven to beg on the streets or to engage in activities inconsistent with societal norms merely to secure their livelihood and thereby deepening their vulnerability and there is total failure of society’s collective conscience to embrace diversity with empathy.”
The Court added that,
“It cannot be said that the Creator has erred. To indict the Creator is to evade human responsibility.”
It further stressed that the absence of patience and tolerance in society cannot justify any denial of dignity and said that transgender persons must be accepted “as equals, as members of families, as participants in the common destiny of this nation.”
The Court emphasised that it was not the role of the judiciary to sit in theological judgment over the Creator.
The Court observed that where society fails to cultivate “tolerance, compassion, and fraternity” and instead shifts responsibility away from itself, the judiciary cannot remain silent.
It said,
“Charter of human dignity obligates this Court to intervene where society has faltered” and that judicial compassion must evolve into enforceable rights because The Constitution does not permit such exclusion.”
The Court expressed deep anguish over the current situation and held that the conditions faced by transgender persons reflect a “collective societal failure to uphold the basic values of empathy, equality, and fraternity.”
To reinforce its reasoning, the Court cited major portions of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014).
It reproduced paragraphs including paragraph 67, which stated,
“TGs have been systematically denied the rights under Article 15(2)… State is bound to take some affirmative action for their advancement so that the injustice done to them for centuries could be remedied.”
It also quoted paragraph 82, where the Supreme Court held that gender identity is an integral part of sex and that expressions like person and citizen must include transgender persons.
The order then reproduced the Supreme Court’s detailed discussion in paragraphs 100, 103, 117, 118, 119, 120, 132, and 133, which covered affirmative action, social equality, access to opportunities, human dignity, discrimination, rehabilitation, and the jurisprudence of justice and fairness.
The High Court noted that although the NALSA judgment was delivered in 2014, its directions “have not been effectively implemented in their true spirit.”
It said that this continued inaction undermines Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and the right to live with dignity.
The Court stated that leaving the matter without issuing further directions would amount to failure of constitutional duty, adding its “profound sorrow in noting that justice has not been adequately ensured to them.”
Taking judicial notice of their current socio-economic hardships, the Court directed the Tamil Nadu Government to design a full rehabilitation scheme at the Taluk level, ensuring self-employment, sustainable livelihood, and meaningful social inclusion with targeted welfare measures.
It ordered the Chief Secretary to coordinate with all departments and ensure time-bound implementation of these measures and to file a compliance report by 26 July 2026. The matter has been posted for monitoring on 3 August 2026.
The order concluded by granting anticipatory bail with detailed conditions and warning that any breach would allow the Magistrate to take action as if the bail had been granted by the Trial Court itself, in line with the Supreme Court ruling in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala.
The Court also recorded that if the accused absconds later, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the BNS.
Case Title: Sarathkumar Vs State
Click Here to Read More Reports On Transgender Rights