Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that transgender and gender-diverse individuals do not have to seek an employer’s permission before undergoing gender affirmation or surgical intervention. The Court emphasised that self-determination of gender is a matter of personal autonomy and dignity. In the case of Jane Kaushik v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 1405/2023), reported as 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1018, a bench comprising Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan issued the landmark decision.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Ms. Kaushik, underwent gender-affirmation surgery in 2019. She was thereafter appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in English and Social Science at the Uma Devi Children’s Academy in Uttar Pradesh on 22 November 2022. She worked only eight days and then allegedly faced body-shaming and harassment because her gender identity did not conform to traditional norms.
When she complained to the principal, her transgender identity was disclosed in the school, and she was forced to resign on 3 December 2022. The school claimed her termination was due to poor performance and misconduct, while the petitioner alleged harassment and discrimination.
Subsequently in July 2023, she applied for a teaching post at the JP Modi School in Jamnagar, Gujarat. She cleared the interview and received an offer letter dated 24 July 2023. However, during the joining formalities, she submitted documents reflecting her gender transition. The school withdrew the offer without explanation. The institution contended the offer was provisional and subject to document verification and probation; the petitioner alleged this was discrimination on the basis of her transgender status.
What the Court Says
The Court categorically held that a transgender or gender-diverse person is not required to take employer permission to undergo surgical intervention for gender affirmation, unless the nature of their work is intrinsically based on gender identity. “We have no hesitation in saying that no transgender or gender diverse person is bound to take permission from their employer to undergo surgical intervention, unless the nature of their work is such that it is based on one’s gender identity.”
It added that while the employee may give prior notice to the employer, that notice is purely administrative, for updating official records and modifying documents, and not for seeking approval. “Of course, the employers must be given a reasonable notice, but that should purely be to make the requisite changes and modifications in documents, etc.”
The Court noted that under Section 9 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 discrimination against transgender persons is prohibited even in recruitment.
More Facts
On the facts of the case, the Court found that while the Uma Devi Academy had made some efforts to accommodate the petitioner (by offering female hostel accommodation and restroom access), the school lacked the statutorily required grievance mechanism and neglected to address harassment.
In contrast, the JP Modi School’s conduct of issuing an offer and then refusing joining once the transgender status became known was found to be unexplained and amounted to discrimination in recruitment under the Act and under Article 15 of the Constitution.
The Court further held the State and Union education and social justice authorities, as well as the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE),
responsible for omissive discrimination for failing to ensure implementation of the Act and Rule.
As compensation, the Court awarded the petitioner ₹50,000 from JP Modi School and directed the Union and the relevant State authorities each to pay ₹50,000 for their failure to provide effective grievance-redressal mechanisms.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Implications
This judgment reinforces that transgender individuals have an autonomous right to determine their gender identity and cannot be compelled to seek employer consent for sex – reassignment surgery. Employers may only require advance notice for administrative updates, not permission. The decision strengthens protections under the Transgender Persons Act and under the Constitution.
The ruling places a clear obligation on employers to recognise the dignity and autonomy of transgender employees. Discrimination at recruitment, termination, or otherwise on the basis of gender identity is explicitly unlawful. Employers must set up grievance redressal mechanisms, and compliance with statutory protections is mandatory.
For transgender persons already in employment or those seeking employment, this judgment offers a strong shield against practices where they are pressured to delay transition or forced to resign. It signals that courts will hold employers and authorities accountable for both active discrimination and failures to implement statutory safeguards.
For organisations and institutions, the message is that gender affirming surgery and transition must be treated as part of personal health and dignity, not subject to managerial or organisational gate-keeping. Policies and record-keeping must respect transitions, update documents promptly, and ensure no adverse employment action arises from gender identity.
In summary, the Court has charted a progressive path: transverse persons do not need employer permission to undergo gender-affirming surgery, only a reasonable administrative notice. The ruling emphasises autonomous gender identity, employment equality, and institutional accountability.
