Respondents noted, however, that the state has established an “Expert Panel on Transgender Issues” that reviews all kinds of opinions to help transgender people live more prosperous and dignified lives. They also stated that the committee would also take into account the views of petitioners in order to formulate a more robust policy in this regard. Several states and union territories have argued that they have taken a significant number of steps to improve the lives of the transgender community. The National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) was the lead applicant. But it was on one condition that Aravan had to spend the last day of his life in marriage. Unfortunately, Aravan could not find a woman willing to marry him, as no woman wanted to marry a man who would die the day after the wedding. Lord Krishna is appalled when he sees this, converts in the form of a woman named Mohini and marries her. The Hijras of Tamil Nadu consider Aravan as their ancestor and call themselves Aravanis.  Hijras also held important positions in courts and administrative positions during the Mughal era in India from the 16th to the 19th century. They had religious authority and gave blessings in religious ceremonies.  A detailed analysis of the historical context of hijras in the Mughal era can be found in Gayatri Reddy`s book, “In Relation to Sex: Negotiating Hijra Identity in South India” – Yoda Press (2006). The beginning of colonial rule changed everything from the 18th century onwards. Early European travelers showed that they showed disgust at the sight of hijras and could not understand why they were detained in this regard in royal courts and other institutions.
In the second half of the 19th century. In the nineteenth century, the British colonial administration tried tirelessly to criminalize the Hijra community and deny them their civil rights. The Hijras were considered by the colonial administration as a distinct caste or tribe in different parts of India. The period leading up to the division changed the conditions of the transgender community.  In 2012, the National Legal Services Authority, an Indian body created to legally represent marginalized segments of society, filed a written petition with the Supreme Court of India. The petition was joined by a non-governmental organization representing the Kinnar transgender community and a person who identified himself as Hijra. The right to dignity, the right to privacy, the right to personal autonomy, etc., have been safeguarded and safeguarded in accordance with article 21 of the Constitution. Legal recognition of gender identity is part of the constitutional right to dignity and liberty. The people of the third community have every right to live their lives with dignity and nobly. From 6 to 9 November 2006, a group of experts in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, adopted the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
In summary, the Yogyakarta Principles, as adopted, are as follows: thus, finally, a petition was filed by the National Legal Services Authority, which in this case was the main applicant, providing free legal aid to disadvantaged and disadvantaged groups in society and resorting to the resolution of their complaints. The organization works for the betterment of society and the petition was therefore submitted so that transgender people could be recognized as a third gender in the eyes of the law, with the exception of binary genders, i.e. male and female. Poojaya Mata Nasib Kaur Ji Women Welfare Society and Laxmi Narayan Tripathy, a well-known Hijra activist, also filed a petition. As I mentioned earlier, it is not only Kushal`s legal illogic that is opposed to this decision, but also to his apathy. From Justice Radhakrishnan`s introductory lines, which speak of the moral failure of society`s reluctance to contain or adopt different gender identities and expressions, to Judge Siri`s recognition of the painful process of transition from one gender to another, it is a text imbued with empathy.  Dr. Lokendra Malik, “Asserting the Human Dignity: The Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in NALSA Case,” Live Law (2015), available at: www.livelaw.in/asserting-the-human-dignity-the-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-of-india-in-nalsa-case/ (last accessed March 12, 2018). This was a landmark decision in which, for the first time, the Supreme Court legally recognized “third gender/transgender people” and discussed “gender identity” at length. The Court recognized that persons of the third sex enjoy fundamental rights under the Constitution and international law. In addition, he called on state governments to develop mechanisms to realize the rights of “third gender”/transgender people.
Justice A.K. Sikri agreed with Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan fully agreed and gave his views on the case, noting that equality in international human rights law is based on two principles, namely non-discrimination and reasonable differentiation. He explained that when shared public bodies are out of reach of the transgender community, it leads to a denial of rights. In short, it means believing in positive rights and reasonable accommodation. This is the kind of explanation that gives diverse marginalized communities a virtual roadmap of rights enforceable by the courts in the future. For this judgment, it assists the Court in situating in Article 14 the right of hijras/transgender persons to legal protection in all areas of State activity and in recognising gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination under Articles 15 and 16. “Constitutional experts,” they note, “have emphasized the fundamental right against discrimination on the basis of sex in order to prevent direct or indirect attitudes to treat people differently because they disagree with stereotypical generalizations of binary genders,” thus advancing jurisprudence on gender stereotypes in Anuj Garg v. Union of India. The Court notes that transgender persons constitute a socially and educationally backward class within the meaning of Article 15(4) and that they are also entitled to a reservation on questions of appointment referred to in Article 16(4) – a strong assertion certainly, but in view of the way in which the judgment slips in and out of the different notions of transgender identity, It also highlights an administrative nightmare without further clarification. The petition demanded a legal declaration of her gender identity as attributed at the time of her birth and that the non-recognition of her gender identity violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The transgender community has insisted that their inability to express themselves in terms of binary gender deprives them of equal protection by law and social welfare. They also prayed for legal protection as a backward community, as well as the right to express their self-identified gender in forms of government.  Sridevi Nambiar, “A Brief History of Hijra, India`s Third Gender,” Culture Trip (2017), available at: theculturetrip.com/asia/india/articles/a-brief-history-of-hijra-indias-third-gender/ (March 12, 2018). Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and article 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 declare that every born person has the right to live and to be protected by the law, and that no authority has the power to deny this right to a person.