- within Insurance, Environment and Technology topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives
NOTABLE JUDGMENTS MAY 2026
1. Supreme Court Says Advisory Panel Has No Adjudicatory Powers, Revives
Transgender Recruitment Plea
Case Title: Jane Kaushik Vs. Lieutenant Governor & Ors [Case Link]
Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 595
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: 10 April, 2026
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a transgender person, had applied or sought to apply for a government vacancy that had been notified only for a particular binary gender (either male or female). An Advisory Committee constituted under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 purported to adjudicate upon the eligibility of the petitioner for the said post and effectively restricted her application on account of the gender for which the vacancy had been notified. The petitioner invoked the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging this determination on the ground that it violated her fundamental rights of equality, non-discrimination, and gender identity.
Issues
- Whether a transgender person may apply for a government vacancy notified only for one binary gender, and whether the binary gender classification in recruitment notifications is constitutionally sustainable?
- Whether an Advisory Committee constituted under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 has adjudicatory powers to determine the eligibility of a transgender person for a particular government post?
Judgement:
The Supreme Court, in an interim order under Article 32, prima facie held that the Advisory Committee had no powers to adjudicate on the eligibility of transgender persons for the post in question. The Court directed that the transgender petitioner be allowed to apply for the government vacancy irrespective of the gender for which it had been notified, thereby giving immediate effect to her constitutional rights of gender identity and non-discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
The order builds upon the foundational principles laid down in National Legal Services
Authority v. Union of India (NALSA), (2014) 5 SCC 438, where the Supreme Court recognized transgender persons as a third gender and affirmed their right to equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court's direction challenges the continued practice of binary gender classifications in government recruitment notifications and signals that such classifications must be reconsidered in light of NALSA and subsequent constitutional developments.
2. The Court clarified that mere pendency of appeals preferred by excluded persons before the Appellate Tribunals shall not entitle them to exercise their right to vote.
Case Title: Mostari Banu V. Election Commissioner of India [Case Link]
Citation: Writ Petition Civil Nos 1089 of 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: 13 April, 2026
Brief Facts:
The petition arose from the West Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the lead-up to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly Elections of 2026. The SIR process had resulted in the deletion of the names of a large number of persons from the electoral rolls. Those aggrieved preferred appeals before Appellate Tribunals constituted under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. However, not all appeals could be decided before the scheduled polling dates Phase 1 being April 23, 2026 and Phase 2 being April 29, 2026. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking enforcement of the right to vote under Article 326 of the Constitution in respect of persons whose names had been deleted.
Issues
- What is the constitutional entitlement of persons whose names have been deleted from electoral rolls but whose appeals before Appellate Tribunals have been decided in their favor?
- Does the mere pendency of an appeal before an Appellate Tribunal by a person whose name has been excluded from the electoral roll entitle that person to exercise the right to vote?
Judgment
The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India that wherever Appellate Tribunals were in a position to decide appeals by April 21, 2026, or April 27, 2026, as the case may be, such appellate orders shall be given effect to by issuance of a supplementary revised electoral roll, and all necessary consequences with respect to the right to vote shall follow.
However, the Court enunciated a critical constitutional principle: mere pendency of appeals preferred by excluded persons before the Appellate Tribunals shall not entitle them to exercise their right to vote. A pending appeal, without a decided order in favor of the appellant, does not suspend the exclusion or restore the right to vote. The right to vote is generated only upon a positive appellate order deciding the appeal in favor of the excluded person.
The order draws upon the constitutional scheme under Article 326 (universal adult suffrage), Article 324 (superintendence and control of elections by the Election Commission), and the framework of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, in charting the temporal boundary between a decided appellate outcome and a merely pending appeal, for the purposes of exercising the right to vote in an ongoing election.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]