The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Justice Asha Menon Advisory Committee has no power to decide legal disputes on transgender recruitment. It granted relief to petitioners and said courts—not committees—must decide such rights-based issues.
The Supreme Court of India has recently raised serious concerns over how the Delhi High Court handled a case related to the recruitment rights of transgender persons in public employment. While issuing notice in the matter, the apex court observed that the High Court made a prima facie mistake by disposing of the petitions and asking the petitioners to approach an advisory body instead of deciding the legal issues itself.
The case revolves around the rights of transgender individuals seeking fair representation and opportunities in government jobs. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. V. Viswanathan made it clear that the Advisory Committee headed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon does not have the power to decide legal disputes.
The Court observed,
“Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in disposing of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Advisory Committee as the Committee possesses no adjudicatory powers.”
The Supreme Court clarified that the role of the Advisory Committee is limited. It is only meant to study issues and give policy recommendations to the government. It cannot decide individual legal cases or grant relief to petitioners.
During the hearing, the Court also recalled that the petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 while the case was still pending before the High Court. Referring to that, the bench stated,
“We must note at the outset that in 2023, the petitioner had also approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner prayed for reliefs pertaining to the framing of an equal opportunity policy, the implementation of various provisions of the TPPR Act and TPPR Rules including various other reliefs in the specific facts of her case. While dealing with the said petition, this Court delivered the judgment titled Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, reported in 2026 (1) SCC 336, wherein several binding directions relating to the implementation of the TPPR Act and TPPR Rules, respectively were issued.”
The Court further explained that the Advisory Committee is still working on several important issues related to transgender rights. These include creating an Equal Opportunity Policy, improving grievance redressal systems, ensuring inclusive healthcare, and addressing gaps in the law.
Highlighting this, the Court said,
“The Advisory Committee is currently in the process of working on the aspects broadly delineated in their remit including the formulation of a model equal opportunity policy in employment and education.”
Importantly, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to the petitioner. It allowed the petitioner to apply for government job vacancies under the transgender category, even if the vacancy mentions a specific gender. This is in line with an earlier interim order passed in January 2023, ensuring that transgender candidates are not excluded from opportunities due to rigid gender classifications.
The original petitions filed before the Delhi High Court had sought several directions to strengthen transgender rights in public employment. These included demands for separate vacancies, reservation in jobs including teaching posts in Delhi, age and qualification relaxations, and allowing changes in name and gender on official recruitment portals.
While deciding the case earlier, the Delhi High Court had relied on important judgments like NALSA v. Union of India, which recognized transgender persons as the “third gender” and directed the government to treat them as socially and educationally backward classes.
The High Court had also referred to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, which highlighted gaps in implementing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and its 2020 Rules. Based on this, the High Court felt that since the Supreme Court had already formed an Advisory Committee to deal with these issues, the petitioners should approach that body instead.
However, the Supreme Court has now clarified that such committees cannot replace courts when it comes to deciding legal rights. The matter will now be heard further after notice has been issued.
In a related development, the Advisory Committee led by Justice Asha Menon has reportedly recommended that the Union Government withdraw the proposed Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, indicating ongoing concerns about the legal framework governing transgender rights in India.
This case is likely to have significant implications for how transgender rights are enforced in public employment and how courts balance policy-making bodies with judicial authority in protecting fundamental rights.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Transgender Job
