India enacted Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 that is pending to be a landmark. Nonetheless, its implementation in practice reveals that it has been seen to be forming a widening gap between formal commitments and reality. The following paper critically investigates that deficiency and combines a legal, constitutional and socio-cultural lens into its investigation, and has drawn the comparative reflections made in the USA, UK and Australia. Doctrinal and comparative law indicates that in spite of the fact that progressive jurisprudence, especially NALSA v. Protection by Union of India--has been widening the protection under the constitution, but change on the ground is still very restricted. Some of the systemic barriers include bureaucratic steps that take a long time to issue identity certificates, laxity on penalties by the state against violence on transgender individuals, and a low level of community involvement in the policymaking process. The research states that legal identification is not sufficient, and the comprehensive, systemic required participation is an integrative and inclusive method of change community-based. In order to accomplish transformative justice, policy should be strengthened through education, the provision of legal support, budgetary accountability, and changes in the structure. Simply put, the changing legal cultures have to promote dignity, autonomy, and substantive equality in the lives of the transgender community, beyond the mere symbolic legal victories
Argade et al. (Wed,) studied this question.