Opinion What the UK can learn from India about trans rights and inclusive feminism
On April 16, the UK Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, clarifying that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer exclusively to biological sex assigned at birth. This interpretation allows organisations to lawfully exclude transgender women from single-sex spaces — such as hospital wards, shelters, and sports categories — even if they hold Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs). Given the scope of the Equality Act, the ruling carries far-reaching implications for trans people in the UK.
This judgment is political in nature — it reverses hard-won protections and significantly affects how trans women access public spaces. Many trans people fear increased vulnerability in an already transphobic and patriarchal society. It is worth noting that anti-discrimination laws in the UK and India are structured quite differently. India does not have a comprehensive anti-discrimination law; constitutional rights are largely enforceable only against the state. However, certain provisions — such as the abolition of untouchability or prohibition of child labour — apply horizontally to private individuals. Article 15(2), for instance, ensures that no citizen can be denied access to shops, restaurants, hotels, or places of public entertainment on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. This horizontal application can, at times, clash with the freedom of association, where individuals claim the liberty to exclude others based on personal conscience. While anti-discrimination bills have been proposed in India, none have been enacted. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court clarified in Kaushal Kishor v State of UP (2023) that constitutional silence on the horizontal application of rights should not be mistaken for prohibition — the state has a duty to protect citizens' rights and interests.
In the UK, the enthusiasm expressed by petitioners over the exclusion of trans women reveals much about the prevailing social climate. For example, many argue that allowing trans women to participate in women's sports is unfair. This 'common-sense' stance, often grounded in a narrow view of biology, reflects deep-seated prejudices. This issue was brought home to me by the Ultimate Frisbee team at the National Law School in Bengaluru, where the sport is played in a gender-inclusive format.
Curious, I turned to the work of Payoshni Mitra, an internationally recognised athlete rights activist who has campaigned against invasive sex-testing in sports. Mitra and her associates advocate a transformative approach to sports policy — one that affirms trans, intersex, and gender-diverse athletes instead of framing inclusion and fairness as mutually exclusive. Their work proposes four guiding principles: Lead with inclusion, decentre regulatory science, invest in community and youth sport, and double down on gender equity.
Zooming out, we must ask: Why are some feminists advocating the exclusion of trans people from the category of 'woman'? Feminist movements of the 1970s and 1980s helped us understand gender as a social construct and opened space for alternative forms of care, community, and resistance to binary thinking. So how did some radical feminists — many of them lesbian — become vocal opponents of trans inclusion, especially in the US and UK?
In her essay 'On Liking Women' (2018), Andrea Long Chu challenges the idea that this is simply a generational divide between older second-wave feminists and younger queer activists. Trans-exclusionary feminists, she argues, are often highly networked and active online, with a 'fascinating relationship to trolling.' Their insistence on defining gender strictly in terms of sex assigned at birth ignores the diversity of gender experience. Chu points out that trans women are not aspiring to become women — they are women. Reassignment surgeries are not only personal choices to feel comfortable in their body, but also about making universal claims on womanhood.
In India, feminists have largely refrained from excluding trans people from the category of 'woman.' Since the 1980s, the 'women question' has remained open-ended and contested. Across national autonomous women's conferences and women's studies forums, a singular or normative definition of 'woman' has been consistently challenged. As a result, the category has remained inclusive and self-reflective.
Feminists have also shown that under colonial law, 'woman' was never a uniform legal subject. In the revised edition of her landmark work Women and Colonial Law: A Feminist Social History (2025), Janaki Nair shows that women in India have always been internally differentiated by caste, class, region, and ethnicity. Legal discrimination does not impact all women equally. Feminists in India have often had ambivalent relationships with the law; some groups have questioned feminist involvement in pursuing criminalisation and punishment, seeking alternative modes of engagement and resistance.
Cultural historians, too, have highlighted how trans identities in India are often shaped not by law but by regional cultures and ritual practices. As Gayatri Reddy shows in With Respect to Sex (2005), hijra identity in South India cannot be reduced to legal categories like 'third gender'. Many hijras understand themselves through moral economies of izzat (honour), memories of religious importance, and past roles at the tomb of Prophet Mohammed.
The bonds of friendship between feminist queer people is apparent in Bengaluru, where trans persons — otherwise marginalised in public — have led queer mobilisation and have shaped the imagination and conscience of queer communities. Recently, I had the good fortune of documenting a series of 'townhalls' or open discussions organised by a non-funded queer peer group called All Sorts of Queer (ASQ) in Bengaluru, a 10-year-old, non-funded collective that began as a group for lesbian, bisexual, and transmasculine people assigned female at birth. Over time, it expanded to explicitly include non-binary individuals assigned female at birth. Recently, in response to questions about belonging and direction, ASQ hosted a series of 'townhall' discussions — online and offline — to reflect on identity, inclusion, and collective ethics. Rather than react to anonymous online criticism, the group chose dialogue, openness, and risk as a way to preserve trust and safety within the community. At a time when exclusion is often framed as protection, these collective practices of reflection, care, and solidarity remind us that the feminist and queer project has always been about expanding, not narrowing, the possibilities of belonging.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
8 hours ago
- India Today
Judges must be free, collegium shields from executive interference: Chief Justice
Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai asserted that judges should be appointed without any interference from the government, defending the Collegium system, which has often been criticised for lacking that the independence of judges is paramount in upholding the Constitution, Chief Justice Gavai, speaking at a roundtable at the UK Supreme Court in London, said, "Unlike the legislature or the executive, whose legitimacy stems from the ballot, the judiciary earns its legitimacy by upholding constitutional values with independence, integrity, and impartiality."advertisementSpeaking on the theme,"Maintaining Judicial Legitimacy and Public Confidence," Chief Justice Gavai said that the Constitution explicitly mandates that the State "take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services." "The foremost consideration is the perceived independence of judges, which hinges on their tenure conditions and appointment processes," he Justice Gavai said that the Collegium system was created in the first place to keep the judiciary independent and free from the state's control."In India, a key point of contention has been the question of who holds primacy in judicial appointments. Until 1993, it was the executive that had the final say in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. During this period, the executive twice superseded the senior-most judges in appointing the Chief Justice of India, which went against established tradition," he also highlighted that the funding for the judiciary is kept separate and comes from consolidated fund to keep it free from executive recent times, Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar has been among the most vocal critics of the Collegium system. Earlier this year, he raked up the controversial National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) issue -- which was struck down by the Supreme Court a year after it became law in 2014 -- in Parliament. The collegium system -- which comprises of the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court -- was conceived and formulated in the Second Judges Case, 1993 the Third Judges Case, 1998 to the NJAC Act, Dhankar said, "That historic legislation endorsed by this Parliament with unprecedented consensual support unknown to the parliamentary history of this country dealt with the malaise very severely."The NJAC, which was passed in both Houses of Parliament and ratified by over 50 per cent of state legislatures, included the Law Minister from the Executive in the panel of six tasked with the selection of the of the remaining five members, there would be two senior-most judges from the Supreme Court, the CJI and two members nominated by a selection committee, comprising the CJI, the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok InMust Watch
NDTV
13 hours ago
- NDTV
"Judges Must Be Free": Chief Justice's Big Remark On Collegium System"
New Delhi: The government superseded the seniormost judges twice while appointing the Chief Justice of India when it had the final say in judges' appointment, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has said. The Chief Justice was speaking on 'Maintaining Judicial Legitimacy and Public Confidence' at a roundtable organised by the UK Supreme Court. The roundtable was also attended by Justice Vikram Nath, Baroness Carr, the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales and George Leggatt, judge of the Supreme Court of the UK. "In India, a key point of contention has been the question of who holds primacy in judicial appointments. Until 1993, it was the executive that had the final say in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. During this period, the executive twice superseded the senior-most judges in appointing the Chief Justice of India, which went against established tradition," the Chief Justice said. The two judges superseded for the top post are Justice Syed Jafar Imam and Justice Hans Raj Khanna. Justice Imam could not be elevated to the top post in 1964 because he was suffering from health issues and the then Jawaharlal Nehru government elevated Justice PB Gajendragadkar. Justice Khanna faced the Indira Gandhi government's ire in 1977, when he lost the Chief Justice post months after his dissenting judgment in the ADM Jabalpur vs Shiv Kant Shukla case, in which he ruled that fundamental rights cannot be suspended even during a national emergency. "In response, the Supreme Court of India, in its judgments of 1993 and 1998, interpreted the constitutional provisions concerning the appointment of judges to establish that the Chief Justice of India, along with the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, would form a collegium responsible for recommending appointments to the Supreme Court," he added. The Chief Justice said the Supreme Court in 2015 struck down the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act. The Act, he said, diluted the independence of the judiciary by giving primacy to the executive in judicial appointments. "There may be criticisms of the collegium system, but any solution must not come at the cost of judicial independence. Judges must be free from external control," he said. The Narendra Modi government had pushed for the replacement of the Collegium system. Then Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had said the system was "alien" to the Constitution. The Chief Justice also said that courts must have the power of independent judicial review, allowing judges to assess the constitutionality of laws and government actions that conflict with the provisions of the Constitution or established constitutional principles. Chief Justice On Ex Judges Contesting Elections Chief Justice Gavai said a judge taking up a government post, or resigning and contesting elections raises ethical concerns. "In India, judges are subject to a fixed retirement age. If a judge takes up another appointment with the government immediately after retirement, or resigns from the bench to contest elections, it raises significant ethical concerns and invites public scrutiny. A judge contesting an election for a political office can lead to doubts regarding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, as it may be seen as a conflict of interest or as an attempt to gain favour with the government. The timing and nature of such post-retirement engagements could undermine the public's trust in the judiciary's integrity, as it could create a perception that judicial decisions were influenced by the prospect of future government appointments or political involvement," the Chief Justice said. "In light of this, many of my colleagues and I have publicly pledged not to accept any post-retirement roles or positions from the government. This commitment is an effort to preserve the credibility and independence of the judiciary," he said.
NDTV
13 hours ago
- NDTV
"Executive Twice Superseded Seniormost Judges": Chief Justice's Collegium Push
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. Chief Justice BR Gavai highlighted the government's past superseding of senior judges in appointing the Chief Justice of India, emphasising the need for judicial independence and the integrity of the judiciary. New Delhi: The government superseded the seniormost judges twice while appointing the Chief Justice of India when it had the final say in judges' appointment, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has said. The Chief Justice was speaking on 'Maintaining Judicial Legitimacy and Public Confidence' at a roundtable organised by the UK Supreme Court. The roundtable was also attended by Justice Vikram Nath, Baroness Carr, the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales and George Leggatt, judge of the Supreme Court of the UK. "In India, a key point of contention has been the question of who holds primacy in judicial appointments. Until 1993, it was the executive that had the final say in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. During this period, the executive twice superseded the senior-most judges in appointing the Chief Justice of India, which went against established tradition," the Chief Justice said. The two judges superseded for the top post are Justice Syed Jafar Imam and Justice Hans Raj Khanna. Justice Imam could not be elevated to the top post in 1964 because he was suffering from health issues and the then Jawaharlal Nehru government elevated Justice PB Gajendragadkar. Justice Khanna faced the Indira Gandhi government's ire in 1977, when he lost the Chief Justice post months after his dissenting judgment in the ADM Jabalpur vs Shiv Kant Shukla case, in which he ruled that fundamental rights cannot be suspended even during a national emergency. "In response, the Supreme Court of India, in its judgments of 1993 and 1998, interpreted the constitutional provisions concerning the appointment of judges to establish that the Chief Justice of India, along with the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, would form a collegium responsible for recommending appointments to the Supreme Court," he added. The Chief Justice said the Supreme Court in 2015 struck down the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act. The Act, he said, diluted the independence of the judiciary by giving primacy to the executive in judicial appointments. "There may be criticisms of the collegium system, but any solution must not come at the cost of judicial independence. Judges must be free from external control," he said. The Narendra Modi government had pushed for the replacement of the Collegium system. Then Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had said the system was "alien" to the Constitution. The Chief Justice also said that courts must have the power of independent judicial review, allowing judges to assess the constitutionality of laws and government actions that conflict with the provisions of the Constitution or established constitutional principles. Chief Justice On Ex Judges Contesting Elections Chief Justice Gavai said a judge taking up a government post, or resigning and contesting elections raises ethical concerns. "In India, judges are subject to a fixed retirement age. If a judge takes up another appointment with the government immediately after retirement, or resigns from the bench to contest elections, it raises significant ethical concerns and invites public scrutiny. A judge contesting an election for a political office can lead to doubts regarding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, as it may be seen as a conflict of interest or as an attempt to gain favour with the government. The timing and nature of such post-retirement engagements could undermine the public's trust in the judiciary's integrity, as it could create a perception that judicial decisions were influenced by the prospect of future government appointments or political involvement," the Chief Justice said. "In light of this, many of my colleagues and I have publicly pledged not to accept any post-retirement roles or positions from the government. This commitment is an effort to preserve the credibility and independence of the judiciary," he said.
