Raj HC questions absence of dedicated hospital wards for transgender community
The bench highlighted that hospitals only provide wards and amenities for men and women, leaving transgender individuals without inclusive medical infrastructure
The Rajasthan high court (HC) on Thursday raised concerns over the lack of separate wards and facilities for transgender individuals in government hospitals and care centers.
During a hearing on a public interest litigation (PIL), the court scheduled the matter for final disposal on November 14.
The division bench, comprising justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Madan Gopal Vyas, heard arguments from the petitioner, Sambhali Trust, represented by counsel Shivani Singh.
Singh argued that the transgender communities in the state lack essential welfare facilities.
Also Read:Telangana government to recruit transgenders as volunteers for traffic regulation
She highlighted that hospitals only provide wards and amenities for men and women, leaving transgender individuals without inclusive medical infrastructure and forcing them to face numerous challenges.
Singh further pointed out that individuals from the transgender community often encounter unique societal perceptions and stigmas. Without dedicated facilities, they experience discomfort while seeking treatment alongside general patients.
She noted that states like Maharashtra have already established dedicated hospital wards for transgender individuals, while Rajasthan is yet to take similar steps.
The bench observed, “Under Section 15 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, transgender individuals have a legal right to accessible healthcare in hospitals and health institutions.”
However, Singh argued that these provisions are not being fully implemented in Rajasthan.
The court also noted, “We observe that, due to laxity on the part of the respondent-State in filing a response in the present proceeding, the right to file a counter affidavit was forfeited on September 19, 2024. This matter has since appeared on the board multiple times. Despite this, state counsel Anita Rajpurohit requested a further adjournment.”