Purposive Interpretation: Securing Inheritance Rights for Transgender Persons

In a significant affirmation of transgender rights, the Calcutta High Court has ruled that a transgender person has the right to inherit ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA). The Court held that the term 'son' in the HSA must be interpreted purposively to include transgender individuals who identify as male.⁵³ This judgment is a crucial step towards dismantling the legal barriers faced by transgender persons in securing civil rights, particularly property and inheritance rights, and it is firmly rooted in the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its landmark 2014 

NALSA v. Union of India decision.⁵⁴ 

The Significance of a Purposive Interpretation Post-NALSA 

The NALSA judgment was transformative. It recognized transgender persons as a 'third gender', affirmed that all fundamental rights apply to them, and, most importantly, upheld their right to self-determination of gender identity.⁵⁴ The Supreme Court directed the government to take steps to treat transgender persons as a socially and educationally backward class and to ensure their rights are protected. However, the 

NALSA judgment stopped short of mandating specific amendments to India's myriads of gendered personal and civil laws, leaving a critical implementation gap.⁵⁵ 

This is where the Calcutta High Court's purposive interpretation becomes so significant. Indian inheritance laws, such as the HSA, are deeply rooted in a binary understanding of gender, using terms like 'son', 'daughter', 'male', and 'female' to define lines of succession.⁵⁵ A literal, textual interpretation of these laws would effectively exclude transgender individuals, forcing them to conform to their gender assigned at birth to claim inheritance or be disinherited entirely. 

The Calcutta High Court's ruling rejects this rigid approach. By interpreting 'son' to include a trans-man, the court has given effect to the spirit of the NALSA judgment. It has recognized that gender identity is the core of the matter, not biological sex at birth. This purposive approach ensures that constitutional guarantees of equality (Article 14), non-discrimination on the basis of sex (Article 15, which NALSA expanded to include gender identity), and dignity (Article 21) are not rendered meaningless by archaic statutory language. This follows a progressive trend seen in other High Courts, such as the Madras High Court's decision to interpret 'bride' to include a transwoman for the purpose of marriage registration. However, this trend is not uniform, with some courts taking a more restrictive view, highlighting the need for consistent application of the NALSA principles.⁵³ 

Remaining Legal Hurdles for Transgender Rights 

Despite this progressive ruling, transgender persons in India continue to face significant legal hurdles in achieving full equality, especially in the civil domain. 

• Legislative Silence on Inheritance: The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, while prohibiting discrimination in areas like housing and employment, is conspicuously silent on the crucial issue of inheritance rights.⁵⁵ This legislative gap forces transgender individuals to rely on judicial interpretation, which can be inconsistent, as seen in conflicting High Court judgments.⁵⁵ 

• Documentation and Identity: While the 2019 Act provides for the issuance of a transgender identity card, ground-level implementation remains a challenge.⁵⁷ Many transgender persons lack official documentation that reflects their self-identified gender, creating immense practical difficulties in asserting legal claims, including inheritance. 

• Marriage and Family Rights: The legal status of marriage involving transgender persons remains ambiguous. Laws like the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act are framed in binary terms. This lack of legal recognition for marriage has a direct impact on spousal inheritance rights.⁵⁵ 

• Adoption Rights: Similarly, adoption laws are gender-specific and often exclude transgender individuals from legally adopting children, creating barriers to forming legally recognized families and affecting succession within those families.⁵⁵ 

The Calcutta High Court's judgment is a vital judicial intervention that pushes the boundaries of statutory interpretation to align with constitutional morality. However, it also underscores the urgent need for comprehensive legislative reform. To ensure the complete recognition of transgender rights, Parliament must amend succession laws, marriage laws, and other civil statutes to make them gender-neutral and explicitly inclusive of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, thereby fulfilling the promise of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution and articulated so powerfully in the NALSA judgment.