![Aparna Mehrotra Added to Advisory Committee, Nithya Rajshekhar Retained for Transgender Rights Work: Supreme Court in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India [2026 INSC 129]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: The Supreme Court appointed Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research, as a member of the Advisory Committee formed by its judgment of 17.10.2025, to represent the Centre and its scholarship on transgender rights. It also clarified that Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar will continue as a member, given her extensive work on transgender rights, though she is no longer with the Centre.
In Jane Kaushik v. Union of India & Ors. (2026 INSC 129), the Supreme Court, on a Miscellaneous Application by the Amicus Curiae, appointed Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research, as a member of the Advisory Committee constituted by its judgment and order dated 17.10.2025 (paras 1, 4). The Court also clarified that Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar, originally nominated to represent the Centre, would continue as a member in view of her extensive work on transgender rights, even though she is no longer an Associate there (paras 2–3). A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan disposed of the application (para 5).
Status: Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 2026 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023 disposed of with directions on the composition of the Advisory Committee (paras 3–5).
Headnote: Membership of the Advisory Committee
Supreme Court – Miscellaneous application in a decided writ petition – Advisory Committee constituted by judgment dated 17.10.2025 – Membership – Representation of the Centre for Law and Policy Research – Transgender rights.
Held: (i) By its judgment and order dated 17.10.2025, the Court had constituted the Advisory Committee with Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar as a member to represent the Centre for Law and Policy Research (para 2).
(ii) The Court took note that Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar is no longer an Associate with the Centre (para 2).
(iii) Considering her extensive work on transgender rights, she would continue as a member of the Advisory Committee (para 3).
(iv) In the interest of the Committee's functioning, Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research, was appointed as a member (para 4).
(v) Ms. Mehrotra will represent the Centre and its scholarship in the field of transgender rights (para 4).
(vi) With these directions, the Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of (para 5).
(paras 1–5)
Case Details: Jane Kaushik v. Union of India (2026 INSC 129)
Final Outcome: Miscellaneous Application disposed of; Ms. Aparna Mehrotra appointed a member of the Advisory Committee; Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar to continue as a member (paras 3–5).
Case: Jane Kaushik v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 129
Case No.: Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 2026 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023
Court: Supreme Court of India (Original Civil Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 6 February 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan (order; no named author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: No statutory provision is cited in the order; directions issued on a Miscellaneous Application in a writ petition
Earlier Judgment: Judgment and order dated 17.10.2025 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023, constituting the Advisory Committee (paras 1–2, 4)
Counsel: Ms. Jayna Kothari, Amicus Curiae, who moved the application (para 1)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research, is appointed a member of the Advisory Committee (para 4).
- She will represent the Centre and its scholarship in the field of transgender rights (para 4).
- Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar continues as a member despite no longer being an Associate with the Centre (paras 2–3).
- Her continuation rests on her extensive work on transgender rights (para 3).
- The appointment was made in the interest of the functioning of the Advisory Committee (para 4).
Brief Facts of the Case
By its judgment and order dated 17.10.2025 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023, the Supreme Court constituted an Advisory Committee, with Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar as a member to represent the Centre for Law and Policy Research (para 2).
Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar is no longer an Associate with the Centre (para 2).
Ms. Jayna Kothari, the Amicus Curiae, filed Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 2026, praying that Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research, be included as a member of the Advisory Committee (para 1).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether Ms. Aparna Mehrotra should be included as a member of the Advisory Committee to represent the Centre (paras 1, 4).
- Whether Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar should continue on the Committee after leaving the Centre (paras 2–3).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Continuation of Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar (paras 2–3): Although she is no longer an Associate with the Centre, the Court took into consideration her extensive work on transgender rights and clarified that she would continue as a member of the Advisory Committee.
Appointment of Ms. Aparna Mehrotra (para 4): In the interest of the functioning of the Committee, the Court appointed Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research, as a member, to represent the Centre and its scholarship in the field of transgender rights.
Disposal (para 5): With these directions, the Miscellaneous Application was disposed of.
Final Outcome and Directions
- Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar to continue as a member of the Advisory Committee (para 3).
- Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research, appointed a member of the Advisory Committee formed by the judgment dated 17.10.2025 (para 4).
- Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 2026 disposed of (para 5).
Legal Principle Laid Down
The order lays down no new legal principle. It shows that the Supreme Court may, on an application by the Amicus Curiae, modify the composition of a committee constituted by its own judgment, retaining a member for her personal expertise while adding a new member to keep the institution she earlier represented on the committee (paras 2–4).
Precedents Relied Upon
No precedents were cited or relied upon in this order.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the order. For the full text, refer to the order PDF below.
Para 2: "Vide our judgment and order dated 17.10.2025, we had constituted the Advisory Committee with Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar as a member to represent the Centre for Law and Policy Research (“Centre”)."
Para 2: "We take note of the fact that Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar is no longer an Associate with the Centre."
Para 3: "However, taking into consideration the extensive work undertaken by Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar with regard to the transgender rights, we clarify that she would continue as one of the members of the Advisory Committee."
Para 4: "In the interest of functioning of the Advisory Committee, we also appoint Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research as member of the Advisory Committee formed by us vide our judgment and order dated 17.10.2025, to represent the Centre and its scholarship in the field of transgender rights."
Para 5: "With the aforesaid directions, this Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of accordingly."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For the Advisory Committee: It gains a new member from the Centre while keeping Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar, preserving continuity (paras 3–4).
- For the Centre for Law and Policy Research: Its scholarship on transgender rights remains represented on the Committee through Ms. Aparna Mehrotra (para 4).
- For court-constituted committees: A member's change of institution need not end her membership where her own expertise is valued (para 3).
FAQs on Membership of the Advisory Committee
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India (2026 INSC 129)?
It appointed Ms. Aparna Mehrotra as a member of the Advisory Committee and clarified that Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar would continue as a member (paras 3–4).
2. When was the Advisory Committee constituted?
By the Court's judgment and order dated 17.10.2025 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023 (para 2).
3. Why does Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar continue on the Committee?
Because of her extensive work on transgender rights, even though she is no longer an Associate with the Centre (paras 2–3).
4. Whom does Ms. Aparna Mehrotra represent?
The Centre for Law and Policy Research and its scholarship in the field of transgender rights (para 4).
5. Who moved the application?
Ms. Jayna Kothari, the Amicus Curiae (para 1).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 129, Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, Advisory Committee, transgender rights, Centre for Law and Policy Research, Aparna Mehrotra, Nithya Rajshekhar, Amicus Curiae Jayna Kothari, Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 2026, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court order
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Jane Kaushik v. Union of India
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).