Transgender Police Officer's Adoption Dream Hits Legal Wall
In a landmark case that highlights the persistent gaps in India's legal framework, K Prithika Yashini - the nation's first transgender sub-inspector of police - has been denied the right to adopt a child. Her application, representing more than just a personal desire to build a family, became a powerful assertion that the fundamental rights to nurture and love should not be restricted by gender identity.
Court's Hands Tied by Outdated Regulations
The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) rejected Yashini's application based on current adoption laws that fail to recognize transgender persons as eligible parents. When the matter reached the Madras High Court on October 7, Justice M Dhandapani faced the crucial question: Can a transgender person be considered a "single person" under Section 57(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015?
Justice Dhandapani expressed that his hands were tied, explaining that existing adoption regulations strictly classify applicants as either male or female, leaving no room for transgender individuals. "In the absence of a clear legislative mandate, the plea of the petitioner cannot be considered," the court observed while dismissing the petition.
Compassionate Judgment Points to Legislative Solution
Despite the legal setback, the judgment acknowledged Yashini's courage and granted her liberty to approach the Union government seeking appropriate amendments to the law. This represents an implicit recognition that true inclusion requires legislative action rather than relying solely on judicial interpretation.
The case exposes a troubling paradox in Indian law. Eleven years after the landmark NALSA judgment recognizing transgender rights and seven years after the Navtej Singh Johar case affirming queer dignity, adoption mechanisms remain trapped in outdated gender binaries.
Yashini's counsel argued that the term "single person" must include transgender individuals, drawing strength from the NALSA vs Union of India (2014) case where the Supreme Court recognized the "third gender" as equal citizens under the Constitution. However, the Union government maintained that any expansion of adoption rights must come from Parliament rather than the judiciary.
The core issue extends beyond adoption rights to touch upon fundamental constitutional guarantees. Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution protect human dignity and equality, yet denying parenting rights based on gender identity keeps these promises trapped in mere rhetoric.
While the Juvenile Justice Act broadly states that "a single or divorced person can also adopt," the implementing Adoption Regulations (2022) operate within a strict gender binary, completely omitting any mention of transgender persons. This omission reflects a system still struggling to accommodate identities that defy traditional categories.
The Madras High Court has now directed Yashini to submit a fresh application to CARA and asked the authority to consider it appropriately, keeping the door open for future resolution of this critical issue affecting transgender rights in India.
