In a major judgment to protect the rights and dignity of the transgenders, the Karnataka High Court has ordered State Government to erase reference ‘eunuchs’ from the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Hearing the writ petition filed by the Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum and others, the HC directed the State Government to amend the Act within six months.
According to Akkai Padmashali a transgender activist and founder of Ondede (forum of transgenders) said the High Court’s decision has come as a big relief to the transgender community which has been battling the State Government for over four years.
According to Jayna Kothari advocate for the transgender community it was great day for them who are fighting against stigma and discrimination. Karnataka legislature in June 2012 passed a controversial Bill amending the Karnataka Police Act and allowing the police to regulate activities of and maintain a black book on transgenders.The Act was amended based on the recommendations of a one-man committee headed by the former law Secretary KR Chamayya. The Act allowed cops to maintain a separate register containing the names and addresses of transgenders who are “reasonably suspected of kidnapping or emasculating boys or of committing unnatural offences”. The Act also empowered police to prohibit registered ‘eunuchs’ from carrying out any activities stated in the order.
After a long battle, the Supreme Court order recognising transgenders as the third gender was a force multiplier and the community filed a writ before the Karnataka High Court seeking repeal of various sections of the Karnataka Police Act.
However, the Government said that it cannot do away with Section 36(A), but a suitable word would be inserted. A Government counsel made submission in this regard before a Division Bench comprising acting Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice Ravi Malimath during the hearing of a PIl, filed by Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum, seeking a direction from the court for declaring Section 36(A) as “unconstitutional”.
The contention of the petitioner was that Section 36(A) “declares eunuchs to be offenders” and such provision is violative of the constitutional right to equality granted to the third gender.