MUMBAI: The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission has taken a serious view of the State chief secretary not appearing before it on a complaint by a trust that highlighted discrimination faced by transgender persons.
“Such apathy amounts to disobedience of our directions constraining us to call upon the Special Inspector General of Police, Investigation Wing, of this Commission to seek an explanation from the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, to justify why penal action under section 166 A (public servant disobeying direction under law) of Indian Penal Code should not be taken against him,’’ said chairperson Justice (retd) K K Tated and member M A Sayeed in the December 18 order.
Kinnar Maa Ek Samajik Sanstha, Mumbai, sought implementation of provisions of The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and “solutions to alleviate the trauma faced by transgenders on account of their gender identity and which has led them to be socially ostracised.” It urged for the creation of awareness that all transgender persons are not Hijras, who are given diksha by their guru and who seek alms at social events like marriage, birth, death etc. “They would prefer to lead a normal life by getting erudite, seeking jobs/employment and also seeking inclusiveness in social circles,’’ the trust’s complaint stated. It added that trans persons will be immensely benefited if the government highlights the difference between Hijras and other transgender persons through “social messages including broadcasting it on physical and social media”
On November 23 the CS and principal secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, were summoned to appear before the Commission “in person or through a duly authorised agent” on December 18. They were directed to “hold a fact finding and file an affidavit in reply.”
On December 18 advocate Amit Shinde, law officer, represented the Department and sought time to file a reply. The bench noted that none had appeared for the CS “nor any affidavit in consonance with our direction…is submitted.” The trust’s advocate Pinky Bhansali said the government should not treat it as adversarial litigation and should come forward and extend support to help the transgender community get into the mainstream. Seeking the CS’s explanation, the bench posted the next hearing on February 1.
“Such apathy amounts to disobedience of our directions constraining us to call upon the Special Inspector General of Police, Investigation Wing, of this Commission to seek an explanation from the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, to justify why penal action under section 166 A (public servant disobeying direction under law) of Indian Penal Code should not be taken against him,’’ said chairperson Justice (retd) K K Tated and member M A Sayeed in the December 18 order.
Kinnar Maa Ek Samajik Sanstha, Mumbai, sought implementation of provisions of The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and “solutions to alleviate the trauma faced by transgenders on account of their gender identity and which has led them to be socially ostracised.” It urged for the creation of awareness that all transgender persons are not Hijras, who are given diksha by their guru and who seek alms at social events like marriage, birth, death etc. “They would prefer to lead a normal life by getting erudite, seeking jobs/employment and also seeking inclusiveness in social circles,’’ the trust’s complaint stated. It added that trans persons will be immensely benefited if the government highlights the difference between Hijras and other transgender persons through “social messages including broadcasting it on physical and social media”
On November 23 the CS and principal secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, were summoned to appear before the Commission “in person or through a duly authorised agent” on December 18. They were directed to “hold a fact finding and file an affidavit in reply.”
On December 18 advocate Amit Shinde, law officer, represented the Department and sought time to file a reply. The bench noted that none had appeared for the CS “nor any affidavit in consonance with our direction…is submitted.” The trust’s advocate Pinky Bhansali said the government should not treat it as adversarial litigation and should come forward and extend support to help the transgender community get into the mainstream. Seeking the CS’s explanation, the bench posted the next hearing on February 1.
About Post Author
