goverRIGHT IN QUESTION
Whether the Court should grant the Petitioner anticipatory bail for sharing a video about the self-immolation of a transgender person in a police station? And, whether it should direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to frame an employment and livelihood scheme for transgender persons?
FACTS
The petitioner published a YouTube video concerning the self-immolation of a transgender person within the precincts of a police station. The video projected that the police collected details of transgender persons because of complaints that they were extracting money through coercion. The person who set themselves alight later died of the injuries. The petitioner contended that the incident had gone largely unreported in the mainstream press. The police registered a case against the petitioner accusing for assault against a public servant discharging their duty (section 353 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). They claimed the allegation of details being collected was false. The petitioner approached the court for anticipatory bail.
COURT DECISION AND REASONING
The petitioner’s video largely retransmitted a video which other media outlets also carried. So, the court granted anticipatory bail setting a bond amount and appropriate bail conditions.
Looking at the broader issue, the court noted that the self-immolation ‘shocked the judicial conscience’. Society’s prejudice results in driving transgender persons to beg or do work ‘inconsistent with social norms’. The court found it has a constitutional duty to alleviate hardship. In NALSA v Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court had directed governments to take measures for transgender persons under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, the government did not implement it in spirit and prevailing socio-economic conditions continue for transgender persons. So, the court directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to frame a scheme for transgender persons at the taluk level with avenues for self-employment and sustainable livelihood. The Chief Secretary was directed to coordinate time-bound implementation and file a compliance report.
SIGNIFICANCE
The order pushes the State Government to carry out the directions in NALSA, highlighting the need for local implementation beyond generic state-wide promises. While part of the order’s language might be paternalistic, such as in using ‘rehabilitation’ to describe these schemes, it clarifies that states have positive obligations to promote equality for transgender persons.