Scholarlink

<p>Contemporary jurisprudence on gender identity has embraced an inclusive paradigm. Against this backdrop United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) judgment in <i>For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers</i>, confining the definition of “woman” under the Equality Act, 2010 to biological females, notwithstanding the recognition of acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act, 2004 stand out to be regressive. This ruling, prioritizing statutory coherence over the transgender rights, reinforces biological essentialism in UK. While the progressive constitutional jurisprudence in India since <i>NALSA v. Union of India</i> (2014) and the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 reflects a transformative ambition, yet remains compromised by paternalistic certification requirements and weak law enforcement. This paper employs a comparative doctrinal and analytical methodology to interrogate how two common-law jurisdictions with different legal trajectory nonetheless confront a shared dilemma, reconciling legal certainty with substantive equality. The study finds that while the UK entrenches narrow statutory definitions, India risks hollowing out its progressive constitutional promise through flawed legislative execution. The paper calls for moving beyond definitional debate towards effective statute upholding the constitutional values of integrity, equality, and dignity for all mankind.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Transgender rights in the UK in the backdrop of the 2025 Supreme Court judgment: a critical reflection with reference to India

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月5日

查看全文
  • Dipshreeya Das,
  • Neetu Banduni

摘要

Contemporary jurisprudence on gender identity has embraced an inclusive paradigm. Against this backdrop United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers, confining the definition of “woman” under the Equality Act, 2010 to biological females, notwithstanding the recognition of acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act, 2004 stand out to be regressive. This ruling, prioritizing statutory coherence over the transgender rights, reinforces biological essentialism in UK. While the progressive constitutional jurisprudence in India since NALSA v. Union of India (2014) and the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 reflects a transformative ambition, yet remains compromised by paternalistic certification requirements and weak law enforcement. This paper employs a comparative doctrinal and analytical methodology to interrogate how two common-law jurisdictions with different legal trajectory nonetheless confront a shared dilemma, reconciling legal certainty with substantive equality. The study finds that while the UK entrenches narrow statutory definitions, India risks hollowing out its progressive constitutional promise through flawed legislative execution. The paper calls for moving beyond definitional debate towards effective statute upholding the constitutional values of integrity, equality, and dignity for all mankind.