Judge A.K. Sikri fully agreed with Judge K.S. Radhakrishnan and gave his opinion on the case, noting that equality in international human rights law is based on two principles, namely non-discrimination and reasonable differentiation. He explained that when shared public bodies are out of reach of the transgender community, it leads to a denial of rights. In short, it means believing in positive rights and reasonable accommodation. Respondents noted, however, that the state has established an «Expert Panel on Transgender Issues» that reviews all kinds of opinions to help transgender people live more prosperous and dignified lives. They also stated that the committee would also take into account the views of petitioners in order to formulate a more robust policy in this regard. Several states and union territories have argued that they have taken a significant number of steps to improve the lives of the transgender community. NALSA`s petition seeks to recognize the gender of the transgender community. Laxmi Narayan Tripathi pleaded in court for their gender to be recognized as a third gender, so that they also enjoy the rights and freedoms enjoyed by all other citizens of the country. It has also been argued that if they are rejected as a third gender, it deprives them of their legal rights to choose and practice their sexual orientation. NALSA v.

Union of India & Ors concerns both national and international laws and conventions. The petitioners` main motive was to put an end to exploitation, abuse and harassment of the community. Facilitate their access to basic facilities such as medical, educational, legal, etc. In epics like the Ramayana and Mahabharata, transgender people like Hijaras and Kinnars have enjoyed the utmost respect and admiration. After colonial rule in India, their status in society deteriorated. The right to dignity, the right to privacy, the right to personal autonomy, etc., are guaranteed and safeguarded by article 21 of the Constitution. Legal recognition of gender identity is part of the constitutional right to dignity and liberty. The people of the third community have every right to live their lives with dignity and nobly. The verdict came as a glimmer of hope for this long-suffering community. The purpose of the judgment was to improve the living conditions of these persons; This eventually gave them the legal status of the «third sex» in society. They can now enjoy all the rights enjoyed by all other citizens of India.

In 2013, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment formed an expert committee to thoroughly examine the issues facing the transgender community and propose government action. The Committee`s report contains detailed recommendations on combating discrimination against transgender people at different levels, which are not explicitly addressed in the judgment itself. However, the decision requires that the recommendations themselves be examined on the basis of the legal explanations it has provided and implemented within six months. The scale of the judgments can then be a useful aid to the meaningful implementation of these recommendations. The Court then interpreted the Indian Constitution in the light of human rights conventions and principles. Article 14 states: «The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws in the territory of India.» The court ruled that the article grants protection to «every person»: «Transgender persons who are neither men nor women fall under the term `person` and are therefore entitled to the legal protection of laws in all areas of state activity, including employment, health care, education, and the equal civil rights enjoyed by any other citizen of this country.» [para. 54] It also noted that the prohibition of discrimination against a citizen, including on the basis of sex, contained in articles 15 and 16 also applied to transgender persons. According to the court, the use of the word «gender» in the articles «is not limited to the biological sex of the man or woman, but is intended to include persons who do not consider themselves male or female.» [para. 59] This was a landmark decision in which, for the first time, the Supreme Court legally recognized «third-gender/transgender persons» and discussed «gender identity» at length.

The Court recognized that persons of the third sex enjoy fundamental rights under the Constitution and international law. In addition, he called on state governments to develop mechanisms to realize the rights of «third gender»/transgender people. In addition, the Court discussed at length the progressive jurisprudence of other countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the United States on the recognition of the fundamental rights of transgender people. He said it was necessary for India to respect international human rights conventions and non-binding principles, as the country does not have «appropriate laws to protect the rights of members of the transgender community». The National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) was the lead applicant. It was established with the main purpose of providing free legal aid to disadvantaged groups in Indian society. [5] The other applicants in this case were the Poojya Mata Nasib Kaur Ji Women Welfare Society, a registered company and NGO, and Laxmi Narayan Tripathy, a well-known Hijra activist. [6] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 31, 32 (interpretation of international conventions) In this case, members of the transgender community need a legal declaration of their gender identity. Hijras/eunuchs, who also belong to this group, claim third-sex legal status with all legal and constitutional protections. The court held that «gender» here not only refers to biological attributes (such as chromosomes, genitals, and secondary sex characteristics), but also includes «gender» (in light of self-assessment).