Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by a transgender person seeking declaration of her territorial jurisdictions for receiving badhai money and gifts, the Division Bench of Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that there was no legitimate or legal basis permitting any person or individual to collect/extract any money, tax, fee, or cess from another, except in accordance with law. Thus, the rights sought by the petitioner were not recognised by the law and could not be legitimised.
Background
The petitioner, a transgender person belonging to the Kinnar Community, had long been exercising the traditional customary/jajmani rights to collect badhai (customary offerings/gifts given on auspicious occasions) in a defined territorial jurisdiction for a number of years. There were other Kinnar persons residing in the same district, who were also receiving the badhai, thereby encroaching upon the petitioner’s territorial jurisdictions. This was causing enmity between them, and there had been instances of fights resulting in injuries.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition claiming protection of her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution to continue her work of badhai collection without fear of violence. She sought a direction to the respondents to demarcate and declare her territorial jurisdictions for the collection of badhai/jajmani to prevent future disputes.
Issues
-
Whether the petitioner has any fundamental right to collect badhai/jajmani, and can such a right be protected by the courts?
-
Whether the prayers sought by the petitioner can be granted, which will amount to granting legitimacy to her operation of collecting badhai/jajmani and confining their traditional role of collecting badhai to a particular jurisdiction?
Analysis
At the outset, the Court rejected the contention that such collection was being made by the petitioner for many years and had translated into a customary right, which should be protected. The Court stated that there was no legitimate or legal basis permitting any person or individual to collect/extract any money, tax, fee, or cess from any individual except in accordance with law. Such rights, as sought by the petitioner, were not recognised by law; thus, the Court, in its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not legitimise her acts.
“Extraction of money from any individual wilfully or otherwise cannot be permitted to be made, and any citizen of this country can be directed to pay only such amounts of tax, cess or fee which can be legitimately extracted from such individuals in accordance with law.”
The Court further noted that, as per the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (the Act), no such right has been sought to be protected. Additionally, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, was under consideration before Parliament, which is a major departure from the Act regarding the determination of the gender of an individual.
Thus, the Court held that such extraction of money could not be legitimised, and the prayer could not be accepted. In case any indulgence was granted to the petitioner, there might be several other persons/gangs making illegal extraction/extortion from people, and such extraction is an offence under the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
[Rekha Devi v. State of U.P., WRIT C No. 3495 of 2026, decided on 15-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Pramod Kumar, Sangeeta Verma, Sarojani Misra
For the respondent: Standing Counsel
Buy Constitution of India HERE
