In Mumbai, the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission has taken a significant step in response to an appeal aimed at providing support for transgender individuals who faced discrimination. The Commission, led by Chairperson Justice (Retd) K K Tated and member M A Sayeed, expressed its concerns in an order dated December 18. They noted the apathy shown by the State Chief Secretary of Maharashtra, who did not appear before the Commission as directed. The Commission considered this as disobedience, leading them to instruct the Special Inspector General of Police, Investigation Wing, of the Commission, to seek an explanation from the Chief Secretary. They were to justify why penal action under section 166 A (public servant disobeying direction under law) of the Indian Penal Code should not be taken against him.
This issue arose from the implementation of the Trans People (Protection of Rights) Act of 2019. Kinnar Maa Ek Samajik Sanstha, a Mumbai-based organization, raised concerns about the discrimination faced by transgender individuals due to their gender identity, leading to their political ostracization. The organization urged the development of awareness to differentiate between Hijras (who are given diksha by their master and seek alms at social events) and other transgender individuals. The complaint emphasized the need for transgender individuals to live a normal life through education, employment, and social inclusion. It also suggested that government’s dissemination of societal information, including broadcasting on physical and social media, could greatly benefit the transgender community by highlighting the distinction between Hijras and other transgender individuals.
The principal director of the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department and the Chief Secretary were summoned to appear before the Commission “in person or through a duly authorized agent” on December 18. They were required to “conduct a fact-finding and respond under oath.” However, on the given date, Amit Shinde, the Department’s advocate and law official, requested time to file a response. The Chief Secretary neither appeared nor submitted any petition in compliance with the Commission’s direction. The lender’s attorney, Pinky Bhansali, argued that the government should not treat the case as hostile litigation and should actively provide support to the transgender community.
The next hearing was scheduled for February 1, with the expectation of receiving a response from the Chief Secretary.
