The Supreme Court has directed that Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate at the Centre for Law and Policy Research, be appointed as an additional member of the Advisory Committee constituted in the pending transgender rights matter, while clarifying that Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar will continue to remain on the committee despite no longer being formally associated with the Centre.
Case Details
- Case Title: Jane Kaushik v. Union of India & Ors.
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Jurisdiction: Original Civil Jurisdiction
- Application: Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 2026 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023
- Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
- Date of Order: February 6, 2026
- Citation: 2026 INSC 129
Background of the Application
The order arose out of a Miscellaneous Application filed by Ms. Jayna Kothari, learned Amicus Curiae in the ongoing writ petition concerning transgender rights.
The application sought modification of the Supreme Court’s earlier directions dated October 17, 2025, by requesting that Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research, be included as a member of the Advisory Committee constituted by the Court.
The Advisory Committee had originally been formed by the Supreme Court through its judgment and order dated October 17, 2025, as part of its continuing oversight in the writ petition.
At that time, Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar had been nominated as a member to represent the Centre for Law and Policy Research.
Change in Professional Affiliation
While considering the application, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar was
“no longer an Associate with the Centre.”
This change in professional affiliation formed the immediate context for the request made by the Amicus Curiae to include another representative from the Centre in the Advisory Committee.
The Court recorded this factual position but did not treat the cessation of Ms. Rajshekhar’s association with the Centre as a ground to exclude her from the Advisory Committee.
Court’s Observations on Continuity and Expertise
The Bench emphasised the importance of continuity and expertise in the functioning of the Advisory Committee, particularly given the subject matter of transgender rights.
The Supreme Court specifically noted the
“extensive work undertaken by Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar with regard to the transgender rights.”
In light of this contribution, the Court clarified that Ms. Rajshekhar “would continue as one of the members of the Advisory Committee,” notwithstanding her present professional status vis-à-vis the Centre for Law and Policy Research.
This clarification underscored the Court’s focus on subject-matter expertise and institutional memory rather than formal organisational affiliation alone.
Appointment of Ms. Aparna Mehrotra
At the same time, the Supreme Court accepted the prayer made in the Miscellaneous Application to strengthen the representation of the Centre for Law and Policy Research in the Advisory Committee.
The Bench appointed Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate at the Centre, as an additional member of the Advisory Committee constituted under the October 17, 2025 judgment. The Court recorded that Ms. Mehrotra was being appointed
“to represent the Centre and its scholarship in the field of transgender rights.”
The order made it clear that this appointment was being made
“in the interest of functioning of the Advisory Committee,”
signalling the Court’s intent to ensure effective and informed advisory support in the continuing proceedings.
Operative Directions
With these clarifications and appointments, the Supreme Court disposed of the Miscellaneous Application.
The operative portion of the order confirmed two key directions: first, the continuation of Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar as a member of the Advisory Committee, and second, the inclusion of Ms. Aparna Mehrotra as an additional member representing the Centre for Law and Policy Research.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
45272026_2026-02-06
