Legal provisions involved: Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Judgement by: Supreme Court of India.

Judge/Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan.

Facts

In an earlier order passed in 2025, the Supreme Court had formed an Advisory Committee to assist the Court in a writ petition dealing with transgender rights. Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar was made a member of this Committee as a representative of the Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR). 

Later, it came to the Court’s notice that she was no longer working with CLPR. Because of this change, the Amicus Curiae approached the court and requested that another member from CLPR be added so that the organisation continued to be represented in the Committee.

Key legal provisions

Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Issues raised

Whether the Advisory Committee needed to be changed due to the professional change of one of its members?

Arguments of the case

It was pointed out that Ms. Rajshekhar had strong experience in transgender rights and her contribution was important, but CLPR should also have a current representative on the Committee.

Judgement

The Supreme Court allowed the application. It decided that Ms. Rajshekhar would continue as a member in her personal capacity, and also appointed Ms. Aparna Mehrotra from CLPR as an additional member.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.