Anjali Guru Sanjana Jaan v. State of Maharashtra
Anjali Guru Sanjana Jaan v. State of Maharashtra
4. The Tahasildar,
Jalgaon.
...
Shri A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.B.Pulkundwar, AGP for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
Shri A.B. Kadethankar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 5.
...
Oral Judgment :
the rejection of her nomination form by the Returning Officer vide the
the female gender and hence, had tendered her nomination form for
category. The reason for rejecting the nomination form is that the
Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and also places reliance upon the
National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2014
State Election Commission submit that they would not argue beyond the
provisions of law and would not make submissions, which are contrary to
the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Legal
petitioner has opted for a right to a self perceived gender identity and has
selected a female gender for all purposes during her lifetime. He submits
that the petitioner, henceforth, shall not switch over to the male gender
under:-
“131. The rule of law is not merely public order. The rule of
law is social justice based on public order. The law
exists to ensure proper social life. Social life, however,
is not a goal in itself but a means to allow the
individual to life in dignity and development himself.
The human being and human rights underlie this
substantive perception of the rule of law, with a proper
balance among the different rights and between human
rights and the proper needs of society. The substantive
rule of law “is the rule of proper law, which balances
the needs of society and the individual.” This is the rule
of law that strikes a balance between society’s need for
political independence, social equality, economic
development, and internal order, on the one hand, and
the needs of the individual, his personal liberty, and his
human dignity on the other. It is the duty of the Court
to protect this rich concept of the rule of law.
132. By recognizing TGs as third gender, this Court is not
only upholding the rule of law but also advancing
justice to the class, so far deprived of their legitimate
natural and constitutional rights. It is, therefore, the
only just solution which ensures justice not only to TGs
but also justice to the society as well. Social justice
does not mean equality before law in papers but to
translate the spirit of the Constitution, enshrined in the
Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive
Principles of State Policy into action, whose arms are
long enough to bring within its reach and embrace this
right of recognition to the TGs which legitimately
belongs to them.
133. Aristotle opined that treating all equal things equal and
all unequal things unequal amounts to justice. Kant
was of the view that at the basis of all conceptions of
justice, no matter which culture or religion has inspired
them, lies the golden rule that you should treat others
as you would want everybody to treat everybody else,
including yourself. When Locke conceived of individual
liberties, the individuals he had in mind were
independently rich males. Similarly, Kant thought of
economically self- sufficient males as the only possible
citizens of a liberal democratic state. These theories
may not be relevant in today’s context as it is perceived
that the bias of their perspective is all too obvious to
to have a right to self perceived gender identity. In the present case, the
petitioner has opted for the female gender as her self perceived gender
statement made to the Court, that henceforth in her lifetime she would
not switch over to the male gender driven by opportunism and would
continue to opt for the female gender, in future, save and except if there is
the Returning Officer, who was circumspect about the nomination form of
the petitioner and hence, opted to reject the form believing that the
petitioner can neither be a male nor a female and the ward has been
reserved for women general category. There is no ward reserved for the
transgender.
impugned order is quashed and set aside. Since the nomination form of
accepted and she is permitted to contest the election from the ward and
13. Since this judgment has been dictated in the open court in the
late hours of the day, and since it is informed that the internet facility in
the High Court has collapsed momentarily, the parties need not wait for
this judgment to be uploaded on the High Court website and shall proceed