Transgenders Are Also Children Of God, Tragedy Is Not In Their Birth But In Blindness Of Society: Madras High Court

“The State Government to formulate a comprehensive rehabilitation scheme for transgender persons at the Taluk level, ensuring avenues for self employment and sustainable livelihood and to restore dignity and ensure meaningful inclusion of transgender persons in society along with necessary welfare schemes tailored to their specific needs” the court has directed.

Noting that transgender people are also children of God, Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the creator had not erred in their birth, but the tragedy was in the blindness of the society, which continued to drive the community to extreme marginalisation, like begging on the street.

“Transgender persons are not strangers to our social fabric and the tragedy is not in their birth, it is in the blindness of society which, by exclusion and prejudice, has driven them into conditions of extreme marginalization such as being driven to beg on the streets or to engage in activities inconsistent with societal norms merely to secure their livelihood and thereby deepening their vulnerability and there is total failure of society's collective conscience to embrace diversity with empathy,” the court observed.

The court underlined that transgender persons are entitled to be accepted as equals and the court could not be a mute spectator to the indignities suffered by the vulnerable class. The court added that the continued marginalisation of the community members reflected a collective societal failure to uphold the basic values of empathy, equality and fraternity and in discharge of the court's constitutional duty, as an instrument of justice to alleviate the hardship.

The court thus deemed it appropriate to issue necessary direction to the State Government to frame and implement effective social welfare measures to enable them to attain development, through economic opportunities, access to education, healthcare, and other essential resources and to ensure that transgender persons are brought to mainstream society. The court added that these directions would be in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment of NALSA v. Union of India.

The court was hearing an anticipatory bail petition filed by a man, V Sarathkumar, who was apprehending arrest by the Srivilliputhur Town Police Station for an offence under Section 353 of BNS [making, publishing, or circulating false stamen or rumour intendent to incite public mischief].

The case against the petitioner was that he had made a YouTube video concerning an incident of self-immolation by a transgender person within the precincts of a police station. It was alleged that the petitioner had projected as if the police had collected details of the transgender person based on complaints that they were extracting money from public through coercive means, which led to the self-immolation and subsequent death of the transgender person.

Seeking anticipatory bail, the petitioner submitted that he had merely retransmitted the content and the message did not originate from him. He also submitted that upon becoming aware of the contents, he immediately removed the video and prevented further dissemination.

The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, arguing that the petitioner had propagated fasle information against the police and the government, creating an impression that the grievance of the transgender community was not being addressed by the authorities.

On perusing the materials, the court found force in the submission of the petitioner and noted that even as per the FIR, similar news had already been published by several media outlets prior to the petitioner's transmission. The court was thus inclined to grant him anticipatory bail and allowed his petition.

At the same time, the court also noted that it could not be oblivious to the tragic incident of self-immolation by a transgender person. Noting that the incident shocked judicial conscience, the court added that the members of the community continued to face entrenched social stigma, resulting in deprivation of basic dignity and meaningful livelihood.

Thus, the court ordered the State to frame schemes for the community. The court also directed the Chief Secretary to coordinate with all relevant departments to ensure effective and time-bound implementation of the schemes and directed the Chief Secretary to file a compliance report.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Thayumanasundaram for Mr. K. Bhuvaneshwaran

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. P. Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: V Sarathkumar v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 183

Case No: Crl OP (MD) No.5185 of 2026