The Maharashtra government has announced that the committee assigned to assess the implementation of the 2019 Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act will present its report by September 20.
During this update, Maharashtra's Advocate General, Birendra Saraf, also made a request for several weeks to allow the state to thoroughly review the forthcoming report.
In response to this request, the bench comprising Justices Nitin Jamdar and Manjusha Deshpande has granted the state an extended period of six weeks to carefully evaluate the report's findings.
The hearing pertaining to the petitions advocating for reservations for transgender individuals within the state is scheduled to take place on October 25.
Two separate civil petitions were brought before the bench—one by Dr. Nia Sara Padamapani and the other by Vinayak Bhagwan Kashid—both of which seek job reservations for transgender individuals.
To facilitate the implementation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act of 2019, the Central government issued the Transgender Rules of 2020, which outlined the procedure for identifying transgender individuals for employment purposes.
Earlier this year, on March 14, 2023, a government resolution (GR) was passed recommending a policy for the recruitment of transgender individuals in employment and education. The GR established a 14-member committee, primarily consisting of department secretaries and a psychiatrist, with its first meeting held on March 28, 2023.
During the court proceedings, Government pleader Manish Pable informed the court that the committee had been formed and had conducted meetings. However, he also mentioned that while they were awaiting a report, it was unlikely that the committee would reach a decision on the reservation issue.
Kashid's lawyer, Kranti LC, informed the court that his client had also approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) regarding the same issue. In response to this case, the state had stated in an affidavit that they would align their decision with that of the central government, which had declared that there would be no separate reservation for transgender individuals. Kranti LC further noted that the MAT hearing is scheduled for this week, during which the state has requested the tribunal to refrain from issuing any orders until the high court has made a decision.
While the bench expressed surprise at the government's affidavit statement, it declined to engage in this argument, emphasizing that they could not direct the tribunal and that it was within the tribunal's purview to make decisions independently. The tribunal could choose not to wait for the high court's decision, the bench concluded.
Â
