Allahabad High Court dismissed plea by transgender petitioner seeking legal right to collect “badhai.” Bench of Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai held no legal sanction exists for such collections.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition brought by a member of the transgender (Kinnar) community seeking legal protection for the traditional practice of collecting badhai customary monetary offerings made on auspicious occasions.
The petitioner, Rekha Devi, approached the Court claiming that she had a longstanding customary entitlement to collect such offerings within a particular jurisdiction in District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, and argued that this practice is protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Seeks Centre’s Reply on Plea Against Transgender Amendment Act 2026
A Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held that kinnars do not possess any legal right to collect badhai, i.e., the customary gifts or offerings offered during auspicious events.
The Bench said,
“Needless to say there is no legitimate or legal backing permitting any person or individual from collecting / extracting any money, tax, fee or cess from any individual except in accordance with law. Such rights as sought by the petitioner are not recognized by law and accordingly the courts in its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot legitimize the acts of the petitioner without there being any backing of law,”
According to the petition, members of the transgender community living within the jurisdiction of Police Station Colonelganj had historically exercised what was described as jajmani rights customary claims to collect badhai in specific areas. However, conflicts reportedly emerged due to competing territorial claims by different groups. The petitioner alleged that this led to hostility, violent clashes, and even incidents involving grievous assault within the community. In light of this, the petitioner sought directions from the Court to demarcate her territorial limits from Kati Ka Pul in Jarwal town to Ghaghra Ghat and up to Saryu Bridge to help prevent further disputes.
Two principal questions were considered by the Court:
- (1) Whether the petitioner had a fundamental right or any legally enforceable entitlement to collect badhai as a customary practice
- (2) Whether the Court could extend protection by formally recognising and territorialising such a practice
The petitioner contended that the practice had been followed for years and had therefore acquired the character of a customary right warranting constitutional protection.
Rejecting these arguments, the Court held that the claim has no legal basis. It observed that no person is authorised to collect or extract money, fees, or any payment from others unless such authority is expressly provided by law. Stressing the absence of statutory support, the Court stated that such practices cannot be validated through the Court’s powers under Article 226.
The Court said,
“In case any indulgence is shown in the respect of the petitioner there may be several other persons / gangs which may be operating and making illegal extraction / extortion from individual and such illegal extraction has never been sanctioned by law in this country and such extraction is an offence under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,”
The Bench also clarified that even long-standing customs cannot override statutory law or create enforceable rights where none exist. It noted that allowing the petitioner’s claim would effectively legitimise unauthorised monetary extraction, which could encourage similar claims by other groups or individuals. The Court further cautioned that such conduct may fall within offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The Court examined the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 as well. While it observed that the Act recognises the rights and identity of transgender persons, it does not provide any entitlement to collect badhai or comparable payments. The Court further referred briefly to a legislative proposal reportedly under consideration in 2026, noting that while it may revisit aspects related to gender determination, it would not change the legal position regarding economic practices such as the one claimed by the petitioner.
It said,
“We have noticed that even as per the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 no such right has been sought to be protected though in the said Act the transgender person was assigned to determine his / her gender. A new bill of 2026 is under consideration of Parliament of India which is a major departure from the Act of 2019 with regard to determination of gender of an individual. “
In its final determination, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s request amounted to seeking judicial approval for an activity that lacks legal recognition and may amount to unlawful extraction of money. Accordingly, it declined to grant the relief sought and dismissed the writ petition as being without merit.
Case Title: Rekha Devi v State of UP
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE