It is an eye-opener for one and all.

In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310, A.N. Ray, CJ (as he then was), noted, varying needs of different classes of persons require special treatment. It was cautioned, equality cannot mean absolute equality. In other words, equality would only mean parity of treatment when there are parity of conditions. In absence of parity of conditions, rule of positive differentiation is inherent in concept of equality.

It is a matter of grave constitutional concern, members of transgender community continue to encounter systemic barriers in ordinary conduct of their lives. A chain of precedents from various High Courts reveals a disturbing continuum of prejudice.

A ‘Transgender Protection Cell’ under charge of District Magistrate in each District and under Director General of Police of State be set up in each State/UT.

– Hon’ble Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023].

_____

High Court missed the purposive construction goalpost and instead proceeded to adjudicate the matter purely as a civil dispute. Constitution of India prescribes an aspiration for all, i.e. equality which is, obviously, yet to be achieved. Courts, in doing their bit to this end, must ground their reasoning in social justice adjudication.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Rousanara Begum v. S.K. Salahuddin, [Diary No. 60854 of 2024] decided on 02.12.2025.

_____

We may also emphasize, statutory interpretation of a provision is never static but is always dynamic. Legal Process Thinkers such as Hart and Sacks rejected intentionalism as a grand strategy for statutory interpretation, and in its place they offered ‘purposivism’. This principle is now widely applied by Courts [Shailesh Dhairyavan v. Mohan Balkrihna Lulla, (2016) 3 SCC 619].

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, State of Karnataka v. Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish, [Civil Appeal No. 7846 of 2023] decided on 04.12.2025.