RAS question
Raveena Singh, Rajasthan's first transgender lawyer, filed a writ petition at the High Court under which landmark SC judgement's framework?
Correct answer: (A) NALSA v. Union of India (2014).
Raveena Singh's Rajasthan High Court writ petition was framed around NALSA v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court judgement that recognised third-gender rights.
Explanation
Raveena Singh's petition is linked to the NALSA v. Union of India (2014) framework because the issue is transgender recognition and equality. NALSA recognised third-gender rights, and the petition also refers to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The Times of India reported the factual setting: Raveena Singh became Rajasthan's first transgender lawyer registered as a woman with the Bar Council of Rajasthan, was filing a writ petition related to transgender rights at the Rajasthan High Court, and pointed to the continuing gap between Supreme Court-mandated rights and official systems that still miss transgender categories. That makes NALSA, not the other constitutional cases listed, the directly relevant landmark judgement.
Why the other options are wrong
- (B) Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) is not the framework for Raveena Singh's petition, which is anchored in NALSA and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
- (C) K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) is a separate Supreme Court judgement in the options, but the stated petition framework is the NALSA recognition of third-gender rights.
- (D) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) does not match the transgender-rights framework in Raveena Singh's petition, as reported by The Times of India.
Concept
This tests how landmark Supreme Court judgements become usable frameworks for writ petitions on equality and recognition. RAS repeatedly asks such questions because governance issues often turn on connecting a current Rajasthan example to the correct constitutional precedent.