Transgender Rights — Institutional Representation in Advisory Mechanism (Paras 3–4) In matters concerning transgender rights and allied constitutional protections, representation of institutional scholarship and domain expertise in advisory bodies constituted by the Court is essential for informed policy and rights-based deliberation.

advocatemmmohan

Advisory Committee — Continuity of Member Despite Change in Institutional Affiliation

(Paras 2–3)

Where a member of an Advisory Committee constituted by judicial order ceases to be affiliated with the institution she was originally nominated to represent, such cessation does not automatically disqualify her from continuing as a member, particularly when her expertise and prior contribution to the subject matter are substantial and relevant to the functioning of the Committee.

---

Power of Court in Original Jurisdiction — Modification/Clarification of Earlier Order

(Paras 1, 4)

In exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, the Court may clarify, supplement, or modify earlier directions to ensure effective functioning of a Committee constituted by it, including appointment of additional members representing institutional expertise.

---

Transgender Rights — Institutional Representation in Advisory Mechanism

(Paras 3–4)

In matters concerning transgender rights and allied constitutional protections, representation of institutional scholarship and domain expertise in advisory bodies constituted by the Court is essential for informed policy and rights-based deliberation.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

By judgment dated 17.10.2025 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023, the Supreme Court had constituted an Advisory Committee and appointed Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar as a member representing the Centre for Law and Policy Research.

Subsequently, a Miscellaneous Application was moved by the learned Amicus Curiae seeking inclusion of Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate at the Centre for Law and Policy Research, as a member of the Advisory Committee.

The factual premise was that Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar was no longer associated with the Centre. However, the Court took note of her extensive and substantive work in the field of transgender rights. The Court thus held that institutional dissociation did not dilute her expertise or suitability as a member of the Advisory Committee.

At the same time, to ensure continued institutional representation of the Centre’s scholarship and research in transgender rights, the Court appointed Ms. Aparna Mehrotra as an additional member of the Advisory Committee.

The order reflects two doctrinal aspects:

First, the Court retains continuing supervisory jurisdiction in matters where it has issued structural or institutional directions, especially in public law and rights-based adjudication.

Second, the Court recognizes that advisory bodies constituted under judicial directions must function effectively, and composition may be modified to preserve expertise, continuity, and institutional depth.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Cessation of institutional affiliation does not ipso facto disqualify a member of a judicially constituted Advisory Committee where the appointment was premised on subject-matter expertise. The Court, in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, may appoint additional members to ensure effective functioning and institutional representation.

---

RESULT

Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar shall continue as a member of the Advisory Committee.

Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research, is appointed as an additional member of the Advisory Committee to represent the Centre and its scholarship in transgender rights.

The Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of accordingly.