Parties and roles: National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) is the petitioner who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Union of India & Ors. is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is a constitutional writ proceeding. Transgender persons, including hijra communities, were routinely denied legal identity matching their lived gender and faced exclusion from education, employment, healthcare and public spaces. Government documents generally forced a male/female choice, making ordinary civil life difficult. The petitions asked whether constitutional guarantees apply regardless of binary sex and whether the State must take positive measures to remedy historic disadvantage. Procedural and real-world context: 2012-2013: NALSA and connected petitioners sought legal recognition and protection for transgender persons. | 15 Apr 2014: Supreme Court recognized the right to self-identified gender and issued affirmative directions. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve does the Constitution protect self-identification as male, female or third gender? Does discrimination based on gender identity amount to sex discrimination? What affirmative duties does the State owe transgender persons? The outcome mattered immediately because transgender persons have the constitutional right to determine their self-identified gender. Hijras/eunuchs were recognized as a third gender, and transgender persons may also identify as male or female without forced medical procedures. Procedural setting: 2012-2013: NALSA and connected petitioners sought legal recognition and protection for transgender persons. | 15 Apr 2014: Supreme Court recognized the right to self-identified gender and issued affirmative directions. The central problem before the Court was does the Constitution protect self-identification as male, female or third gender? Does discrimination based on gender identity amount to sex discrimination? What affirmative duties does the State owe transgender persons? The controversy was considered in the framework of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; human-rights and welfare laws considered, together with Constitution arts.14, 15, 16, 19(1)(a) and 21. The wider importance of the case lies in self-identification; dignity; substantive equality; non-discrimination; positive State obligation; affirmative action.

Petitioners: gender identity is central to dignity, autonomy, expression and equality; forced classification and discrimination violate fundamental rights. | Union/States: several welfare measures were underway, but implementation, classification and reservation required administrative frameworks. Competing positions in context: National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)'s position: as the petitioner, National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Self-identification; dignity; substantive equality; non-discrimination; positive State obligation; affirmative action. Union of India & Ors.'s position: as respondent, Union of India & Ors. resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; human-rights and welfare laws considered and Constitution arts.14, 15, 16, 19(1)(a) and 21, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

Transgender persons have the constitutional right to determine their self-identified gender. Hijras/eunuchs were recognized as a third gender, and transgender persons may also identify as male or female without forced medical procedures. Governments were directed to treat them as socially and educationally backward for reservation, provide healthcare and welfare measures, address stigma and permit identity documents consistent with gender identity. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Self-identification; dignity; substantive equality; non-discrimination; positive State obligation; affirmative action and binds the parties to the operative directions made in W.P.(C) Nos. 400/2012 and 604/2013. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; human-rights and welfare laws considered. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; human-rights and welfare laws considered

Constitution arts.14, 15, 16, 19(1)(a) and 21

Self-identification; dignity; substantive equality; non-discrimination; positive State obligation; affirmative action