“Expertise Over Formal Titles: Supreme Court Strengthens Transgender Rights Advisory Committee, Adds CLPR Representative

“Continuity of scholarship and lived advocacy must guide constitutional implementation”, On 06 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, exercising its original jurisdiction under Article 32, passed a significant order that effective enforcement of transgender rights demands continuity of expertise rather than rigid adherence to institutional labels.

A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed a miscellaneous application filed by the Amicus Curiae, Ms. Jayna Kothari, seeking modification of the Court’s earlier order dated 17.10.2025, which had constituted an Advisory Committee on transgender rights.

The Court clarified that a previously nominated member would continue on the Committee despite no longer being formally associated with the Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR), while also appointing an additional Senior Associate of the Centre to ensure institutional representation and effective functioning.

“Transgender rights require continuity, not disruption”

By its earlier judgment dated 17.10.2025, the Supreme Court had constituted an Advisory Committee to assist in matters concerning the implementation and protection of transgender rights, appointing Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar as a member to represent the Centre for Law and Policy Research.

Subsequently, it came to light that Ms. Rajshekhar was no longer associated with the Centre. In this context, the learned Amicus Curiae moved the present Miscellaneous Application, seeking inclusion of Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, CLPR, so that the Centre continued to have formal representation on the Advisory Committee.

The prayer was limited, yet constitutionally sensitive — balancing individual expertise with institutional continuity in a domain where policy, lived experience and rights-based advocacy intersect.

“Extensive work in the field outweighs institutional disengagement”

Taking note of the factual position, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar was no longer an Associate with the Centre. However, the Bench made it clear that formal disengagement from an institution could not dilute the value of substantive work already undertaken.

The Court recorded:

“Taking into consideration the extensive work undertaken by Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar with regard to the transgender rights, we clarify that she would continue as one of the members of the Advisory Committee.”

This clarification underscores the Court’s approach that constitutional bodies and committees must be guided by subject-matter expertise, experience and sustained contribution, particularly in sensitive human rights domains such as transgender rights.

“Institutional voice and individual expertise must co-exist”

Appointment of an Additional Member

While ensuring continuity of expertise, the Court simultaneously recognised the importance of institutional representation. In furtherance of the effective functioning of the Advisory Committee, the Bench appointed Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research, as an additional member.

The Court observed that her inclusion was necessary:

“In the interest of functioning of the Advisory Committee… to represent the Centre and its scholarship in the field of transgender rights.”

This dual approach reflects the Court’s effort to balance individual advocacy with institutional research capacity, ensuring that the Committee benefits from both personal experience and structured academic engagement.

“Judicial supervision in rights enforcement is a continuing process”

Role of Amicus Curiae and Inherent Powers

The order also highlights the active role played by Amicus Curiae in post-judgment monitoring and implementation, especially in public interest and constitutional matters. Acting on the request made by the Amicus, the Court exercised its inherent powers to modify its earlier order, emphasising that judicial directions are not static but evolve to meet practical realities.

The Bench recognised that effective implementation of transgender rights requires sustained scholarly and advocacy input, and that advisory mechanisms must remain flexible to ensure meaningful outcomes.

By allowing the Miscellaneous Application, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that constitutional governance in human rights matters must privilege continuity, expertise and inclusivity over procedural rigidity. The clarification that a member’s contribution does not evaporate with institutional disengagement, coupled with the appointment of an additional institutional representative, strengthens the Advisory Committee both intellectually and structurally.

The order reinforces the Court’s continuing commitment to active supervision and responsive modification in the ongoing journey toward substantive equality and dignity for transgender persons.

Date of Decision: 06 February 2026