The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed a writ petition filed by a member of the transgender community seeking the demarcation of territorial jurisdictions for the collection of badhai (customary offerings). The Court observed that such extractions of money have no legal backing and cannot be legitimized under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Background
The petitioner, Rekha Devi, belonging to the Kinnar (Transgender) community and residing in District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, approached the Court seeking a direction to the state respondents to demarcate and declare her territorial jurisdiction for the collection of badhai and jajmani rights. The requested area extended from Kati ka Pul in Jarwal town to Ghaghra Ghat and up to Saryu Bridge in Colonelganj.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel, Ms. Sangeeta Verma, submitted that the community has long exercised traditional customary/jajmani rights to collect offerings on auspicious occasions within defined territories. It was argued that since multiple groups in District Gonda are realizing badhai, they are encroaching upon each other’s jurisdictions. This has reportedly led to enmity, fights, and “instances of murderous assaults” causing grievous hurts within the community.
The petitioner claimed protection of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution to carry out the task of collection without fear of violence, seeking the demarcation to prevent future disputes.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai framed two primary issues: whether the petitioner has a fundamental right to collect badhai/jajmani that can be protected by courts, and whether granting the prayers would amount to granting legitimacy to such operations.
The Court noted that there is no “legitimate or legal backing” permitting any person or individual from collecting or extracting any money, tax, fee, or cess from any individual except in accordance with law. The Bench observed:
“Such rights as sought by the petitioner are not recognized by law and accordingly the courts in its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot legitimize the acts of the petitioner without there being any backing of law.”
Regarding the extraction of money, the Court held:
“Extraction of money from any individual willfully or otherwise cannot be permitted to be made and any citizen of this country can be directed to pay only such amounts of tax, cess or fee which can be legitimately extracted from such individuals in accordance with law.”
The Bench further observed that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 does not seek to protect any such right. The Court also took note of a new Bill of 2026 under consideration by Parliament, which it described as a “major departure” from the 2019 Act regarding gender determination, but emphasized that it does not provide legitimacy for such extractions.
The Court warned that showing indulgence in this matter could lead to illegal extraction or extortion by various persons or gangs. It noted that such acts are never sanctioned by law and constitute an offence under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Decision
The Court concluded that the writ petition was devoid of merit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Rekha Devi Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) Lko. And 6 Others
- Case No.: WRIT-C No.3495 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
- Date: April 15, 2026
