-
by Admin
05 December 2025 12:07 PM
“Where the State Creates A Duty by Law, the Breach of That Duty by Private Persons Is Justiciable Before This Court Under Article 32” - In a path-breaking ruling on 17 October 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in Arya K v. Union of India & Ors, clarified that private educational institutions and establishments are constitutionally accountable for discrimination against transgender persons, where the duties they violate flow from statutory enactments grounded in constitutional rights.
The ruling reaffirms that horizontal application of fundamental rights—especially equality and non-discrimination—is no longer merely theoretical but legally enforceable under legislative frameworks like the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The Court held that such duties bind private actors, and their violation can be remedied through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
A Case of Discrimination by a Private School
The petitioner, Arya K, a transgender woman, alleged that she was first terminated from one school, and later denied employment at another private school when her transgender identity was revealed. Despite her qualifications, she faced rejection and humiliation, prompting her to approach the Court under Article 32, asserting violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21, as well as her rights under the 2019 Act.
The second school—a private institution—argued that no writ could lie against a private unaided school and that the petitioner had alternate remedies under civil law.
“Fundamental Rights Can Apply Horizontally Through Law—This Is One Such Case”
Rejecting the argument of non-maintainability, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Transgender Persons Act, 2019, explicitly casts statutory obligations on private entities. The Court held:
“The legislature, in enacting the 2019 Act, has extended the constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination horizontally. Once these rights are embodied in law, their breach by any person—public or private—is justiciable.”
The Court invoked Sections 3, 9, 10, and 11 of the Act, which prohibit discrimination by private employers, mandate a safe working environment, require the appointment of a Complaints Officer, and stipulate the framing of equal opportunity policies.
“Private entities—especially employers—cannot shelter themselves from accountability when they violate duties expressly created by law. If such violations impact constitutional rights, this Court is not powerless to act.”
Supreme Court’s Stand on Horizontal Discrimination: A Turning Point
The judgment is a watershed moment in the evolution of Indian constitutional jurisprudence regarding horizontal rights enforcement.
The Court relied upon and extended the logic of earlier precedents:
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – which laid down enforceable guidelines against sexual harassment in private workplaces;
Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005) – which clarified writs can lie against non-State actors in certain contexts;
Jeeja Ghosh v. SpiceJet (2016) – where compensation was awarded against a private airline for discriminatory treatment.
Quoting from the judgment:
“Where the State has given rise to statutory obligations to protect constitutional values, and a person’s right to live with dignity and non-discrimination is violated, we must not hold the hands of the petitioner and send her elsewhere. Article 32 is a living promise.”
The Court held that availability of alternate remedies does not bar a constitutional writ under Article 32, especially in cases of systemic rights violation, stating:
“It would be perverse to tell a petitioner whose fundamental right is violated by a private entity—enabled by the State’s legislative mandate—that they must go to a civil court.”
The 2019 Act Bridges the Gap Between Public and Private Spheres
The Supreme Court noted that Articles 15(2), 17, and 23 of the Constitution already provide for horizontal enforcement, and that the 2019 Act crystallizes similar obligations for the transgender community across both State and non-State domains.
“This Act is not a dead letter. It seeks to reverse centuries of oppression by ensuring that both State and private actors contribute to a just society. To ignore this would be to defeat the law’s transformative purpose.”
The Court also underscored that educational institutions and private employers—as part of the economic and social landscape—cannot opt out of constitutional morality simply by virtue of being privately managed.
“Every establishment—public or private—functions in a constitutional culture. Where the law incorporates that culture, it binds all.”
Remedy and Orders: Enforcement, Not Just Recognition
As a result of this finding, the Court:
Granted ₹50,000 compensation against the private school for its discriminatory denial of employment.
Directed the Union and State governments to ensure that all private institutions (schools, companies, universities, etc.) comply with the 2019 Act, including:
Appointment of Complaints Officers
Drafting of Equal Opportunity Policies
Creating transgender-inclusive infrastructure
Periodic sensitization training
Held that any breach of these duties by private establishments would now be judicially enforceable, either under Article 32 or writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
A New Chapter in Horizontal Rights Jurisprudence
This ruling reinforces the idea that equality, dignity, and non-discrimination are not limited to government action, but must permeate all layers of society—including private employers and institutions.
By upholding the statutory imposition of constitutional duties on private actors, the Court signals a shift towards stronger enforcement of horizontal rights, especially for marginalized communities who have historically been excluded from public participation.
“We must ensure that rights are not aspirational phrases, but actionable guarantees. The Constitution does not pause at the gates of private establishments.”
Date of Decision: 17th October, 2025
