Workshop on LGBTQIA+ rights held at Knp Airport
The workshop focused on ensuring constitutionally compliant, inclusive, and dignified treatment of LGBTQIA+ and transgender passengers, particularly in security procedures. included discussions on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and landmark Supreme Court rulings such as NALSA (2014) and Navtej Johar (2018).
The event was led by KQWF founder Anuj Pandey, co-founder Ehsan Ansari, and AISSA Chief Trustee Bhartendu Vimal Dubey.
the session also featured community representatives Abhishek Kumar and Dev Singh, who shared real-life experiences and practical suggestions.
A key part of the session included a 30-point guideline on respectful interaction with LGBTQIA+ individuals, addressing aspects such as language, physical checks, informed consent, and privacy. Role plays, case studies, and interactive discussions added depth to the training.
KQWF announced that similar sessions will be held at other airports and CISF centres across the country, with AISSA providing legal and technical assistance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What will it take to restore J&K statehood
Six years after the Centre's unprecedented decision to reorganise the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir into two Union Territories — J&K and Ladakh — calls to restore statehood have been getting louder. Last month, J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah made a forceful plea to the Centre for restoring statehood. 'We're not asking for something that is not our due. Statehood is the right, it was promised to the people,' he had said on July 20. What would restoration of statehood mean for J&K? What would it take for that to happen? Statehood will empower CM The J&K Reorganisation Act was passed in Parliament on August 6, 2019. It gave the Centre, through the Lieutenant Governor, a heightened legislative role in J&K, and put the bureaucratic apparatus in the UT under the Union Home Minister. Both policing and public order were placed within control of the Centre. Subjects on the Concurrent List in the Constitution were taken off the plate of the legislative Assembly as well. The Act also barred the UT's legislature from introducing bills with any fiscal, monetary or taxation implications without the recommendation of the L-G. This is particularly limiting since virtually every policy decision requires taxation, expenditure or revenue adjustments. So a restoration of statehood would effectively empower the elected government in J&K and vastly reduce the powers of the L-G, who, according to Section 53 of the Reorganisation Act, has the 'final' say on almost every administrative and legislative decision. '…The decision of the Lieutenant Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Lieutenant Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion…,' Section 53 states. Act of Parliament will be needed The J&K Reorganisation was without precedent — no state had ever been reduced to a UT before. But granting statehood would not be without precedent. Five UTs have previously been granted statehood by Parliament: Himachal Pradesh in 1971, Manipur and Tripura in 1972, and Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram in 1987. Additionally, the state of Goa was carved out of the then UT of Goa, Daman and Diu in 1987. For statehood to be restored to J&K, the Reorganisation Act would have to be repealed, and the Centre would have to introduce a fresh bill in Parliament, which then would have to be passed in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Article 3 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to form a new state out of the territory of any other state or UT, as well as to change the area or name of a state. But a bill to this effect can only be introduced on the recommendation of the President. Since the President acts only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers — led by the Prime Minister — this essentially means that it is up to the Centre to recommend the introduction of the bill for restoration of statehood.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Punjab to hire sign language experts under Juvenile Justice Act
To ensure access of the judicial system to all sections of society, the Punjab government is set to become the first state in the country to formally empanel sign language interpreters, translators and special educators under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Baljit Kaur, minister for social security, emphasised that this empanelment under the Juvenile Justice Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 will bridge communication gaps and strengthen access to justice and rights for children. These trained professionals will play a supportive role during court proceedings, thereby ensuring impartial and transparent outcomes. These trained professionals will play a supportive role during court proceedings, thereby ensuring impartial and transparent outcomes. The minister further informed that the empanelled professionals would be deployed district-wise and would be compensated as per the provisions of the Acts. Timely and continuous assistance will be ensured wherever required. It is worth mentioning that the Punjab Government has already set a precedent by broadcasting important proceedings of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha in sign language.
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Use RTI to seek reasons for public employment and policy deviations
Recently, an RTI questioner from Coimbatore sought some very useful information. The query was built around RTI's utility in questioning the re-employment order by the Department of Higher Education, with a focus on the use of RTI queries as a tool for public accountability. In a compelling example of how the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be used to challenge administrative decisions, a former professor and RTI activist has raised critical questions about a recent order issued by the Department of Higher Education in Tamil Nadu, which allows re-employment of certain college-level administrative officers beyond the age of superannuation. On July 31, the department issued an order permitting the re-employment of those engaged in administrative functions, even after crossing the age of 60 years. This move, based on a request from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, sparked concern over its legality and consistency with existing government norms. RTI activist seeks answers: N R Ravisankar, an RTI activist and former Head of the Mathematics Department at CBM College, Coimbatore, submitted a formal representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, raising a red flag on the order. He cited Government Order (G.O.) 192 dated November 12, 2024, which had categorically barred re-employment for such positions beyond the age of 60. Prof. Ravisankar argues that the new order contradicts this amendment to G.O. 92, which states: 'Every government servant in the superior as well as basic service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which they attain the age of 60 years. They shall not be retained in service after that age.' Questions raised under RTI: The activist's move highlights how RTI can be effectively used to demand transparency and rationale behind policy reversals or deviations. Through RTI applications and petitions, the following key questions can be posed to the Department of Higher Education and relevant authorities: Did the Higher Education Department consult the Law Department before issuing this July 31 G.O.? If yes, provide copies of such legal opinions. Has any review committee or expert panel been constituted to examine the impact of re-employment on governance, recruitment opportunities for younger candidates, and institutional autonomy? How many officials have been re-employed under this new order? Please provide a district-wise list with names, designations, and dates of reappointment. Was the re-employment order placed before the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly or its relevant committee for oversight, especially in light of its policy implications? Is there any provision under existing UGC regulations or the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules that permits administrative staff to continue beyond superannuation age, specifically in aided colleges? What was the rationale behind cancelling re-employment in an earlier instance—such as the case of a government-aided college in Coimbatore where a new principal was directed to be appointed upon the previous incumbent's retirement? Does the July 31, 2025 G.O. apply to government-aided institutions as well? If yes, how does this comply with the statutory and financial norms applicable to such institutions? Legal and ethical dilemma: Prof Ravisankar underscores that such re-employment orders not only defy the retirement age rule but also block opportunities for younger aspirants in the education sector. 'If the rule is clear that retirement is mandatory at 60, how can administrative exceptions be allowed selectively? It defeats the very purpose of uniformity and public interest in service rules,' he said in his representation. His RTI-based challenge exemplifies how citizens and professionals can act as watchdogs over executive discretion, especially in sectors like education, where transparency and accountability are vital for fair governance. An administrative question: Whether the Department of Higher Education will issue a clarification or revoke the July 31 order remains to be seen. To reinforce the utility of the Right to Information (RTI) in questioning government re-employment policies post-superannuation, we can refer to a landmark decision by this author (Prof. (Dr.) M. Sridhar Acharyulu, former Central Information Commissioner (CIC)). This answer underscored citizens' right to seek reasons and file queries regarding public employment and policy deviations, especially those affecting transparency and equal opportunity. In File No: CIC/SA/A/2016/001978, the CIC ruled that: 'Public authorities are bound to give reasons for selection, extension, or re-employment of public servants, especially when there is a departure from standard procedure or existing policy.' This judgment arose in the context of an RTI applicant seeking details about the re-employment of a retired officer in a central government department. The Central Information Commission directed the public authority to: Disclose the note sheets and file notings showing the rationale for re-employment. Provide copies of approval orders, correspondence, and minutes of meetings that led to the decision. Clarify whether any rules were relaxed or amended to allow such re-employment. In his detailed reasoning, he emphasised: 'When a government servant is re-employed post-retirement, especially when young and qualified aspirants are awaiting regular appointments, the authorities must place on record the compelling public interest that justified such a move.' This principle is directly relevant to the July 31, 2025 re-employment order issued by the Tamil Nadu Department of Higher Education. Based on that ruling, the following implications arise: Citizens can question: Activists like Prof Ravisankar can seek: 1. The file notings, justifications, and correspondence from the Higher Education Department and Collegiate Education Commissioner-On whether any rules under G.O. 92 or G.O. 192 were amended or bypassed. 2. Lack of transparency violates the RTI mandate-If the July 31 order does not disclose public interest justifications, it could be seen as arbitrary or opaque, inviting challenge under RTI as well as judicial review. 3. Re-employment must serve public interest, not individual continuity-As noted in the order: Public offices are not meant for the convenience of individuals but for the service of the public. 4. RTI is a tool to uphold equality and fair opportunity-Re-employment of individuals beyond 60, without open recruitment or advertisement, raises serious concerns about denial of opportunity to eligible younger candidates, which can be pursued through RTI. Activists or citizens can file RTIs asking for: Copy of the July 31 G.O. with background file notes and recommendations; Details of consultation with the Law Department, if any. This judgment of CIC affirms that RTI is a powerful legal mechanism to challenge arbitrary re-employment, demand transparency in administrative decisions, and protect the rights of deserving aspirants. In the current Tamil Nadu case, this precedent strengthens the position of public-spirited individuals like Prof Ravisankar in ensuring that public policy does not become a tool for preferential or non-transparent governance. (The writer is a former CIC and Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
