| Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli v. State of Telangana | |
| Judges: | Ujjal Bhuyan and C.V. Bhaskar Reddy |
| Keywords: | Criminal Stereotyping, Institutional Discrimination, Intersex Rights, Non-binary Gender Rights, Transgender Rights |
| Opinions: |
|
| Decision By: | Ujjal Bhuyan and C.V. Bhaskar Reddy |
| Number Of Judges: | 2 |
| Court: | Telangana High Court |
| Date Decided: | 6 July 2023 |
| Full Name: | Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli versus State of Telangana |
Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli versus State of Telangana (2023), a landmark decision of Telangana High Court, invalidating the Telangana Eunuchs Act of 1329 Fasli which categorized intersex, non-binary gender, and transgender individuals as susceptible to criminal actions, as it was found to be in violation of the constitution.[1] [2] [3]
The court has directed the State Welfare Board for Transgender Persons in Telangana to collaborate with legal services authorities in order to ensure the successful implementation of the Transgender Persons Act of 2019, the Transgender Persons Rules of 2020, and the action plan formulated by the board. The court emphasized that the collaboration should involve proactive actions, such as actively engaging with transgender individuals to streamline the process of issuing identity certificates and ensuring access to a range of welfare programs.
The court issued a directive stating that the benefits of the Aasara Pension Scheme, which was implemented by the State Government of Telangana, must be expanded to encompass transgender individuals as a distinct group.
Until comprehensive legislation is put in place, the Court mandated the State Government of Telangana to issue government orders and administrative directives to implement affirmative action through vertical reservation for transgender individuals, as Other Backward Class, securing admission to educational institutions and facilitating recruitment into Government and public services.
During British rule in India, intersex, non-binary gender and transgender individuals were referred to as 'eunuchs' in a stigmatizing manner. The British introduced discriminatory laws based on gender identity, including an 1897 amendment that added 'eunuchs' to the Criminal Tribes Act of 1873, an Act that presumed certain communities were predisposed to criminal activity. The amendment introduced a separate section for 'eunuchs', defining them as impotent males. They were mandated to register with local authorities and faced restrictions on acting as guardians for minors, executing gifts or wills, and adopting sons, with violations carrying the risk of imprisonment. They were prohibited from 'dressing like a woman' in public, engaging in dance, and partaking in public exhibitions.[4] [5]
While the Criminal Tribes Act was repealed in 1949, similar language persisted in other laws to control and surveil transgender individuals. The current case pertains to the Telangana Eunuchs Act of 1329 Fasli, formerly known as the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Eunuchs Act of 1329 Fasli, which was initially enacted in 1919. Following the division of the united Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the Act was renamed as the Telangana Eunuchs Act of 1329 Fasli.[6] [7] The Act empowers Police and State Authorities to the maintenance of a register detailing the names and residences of 'eunuchs' suspected of engaging in activities such as 'kidnapping and emasculating boys' or of committing 'unnatural offences' or abetting the commission of such offences.
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Telangana Eunuchs Act of 1329 Fasli in the Telangana High Court and requested the following remedies.
The petitioner sought directives from the Telangana High Court, requesting following actions from the State Government of Telangana and its relevant Department for betterment of intersex, non-binary gender, and transgender individuals.
The petitioners emphasized the profound repercussions of the COVID-19 lockdown, leading to a total loss of income within the Transgender community in the State of Telangana. Due to the absence of ration cards, the transgender community faced difficulties in accessing public distribution systems and COVID-19 lockdown-related welfare schemes, which were intended to alleviate the impacts of the COVID-19 lockdown and were available to the general public.The petitioners argued that their complete loss of income has rendered them unable to financially support their gender-affirming healthcare and HIV treatment.
On 27 April 2020, a two-judge Bench, consisting of Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and A. Abhishek Reddy, ordered the State Government to provide a report detailing the specific actions they are taking to ensure that transgender individuals have access to essential food, consumables, and medications without cost or the need for a ration card.
The petitioners' counsel contended that transgender individuals face obstacles in obtaining ration cards due to the absence of a category for non-binary individuals in the ration card application form. This deficiency in the application form results in the denial of access to the Public Distribution System for the transgender community. The counsel emphasized that the transgender community encounters discrimination and social exclusion, leading to their limited access to healthcare services for the treatment of COVID-19. The counsel made a plea for the establishment of dedicated wards and the sensitization of medical staff to cater to the healthcare needs of transgender patients.[10]
On 29 June 2020, a two-judge Bench, composed of Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and B. Vijaysen Reddy, issued a directive to the Government, instructing them to acknowledge the concerns raised by the petitioners regarding ration cards and COVID-19 treatment. The Government is further tasked with providing the Bench with an update on the actions they have taken in response to these concerns on 6 July 2020.