
Rajasthan HC aggressively expands rights and reservation for transgenders, calling existing policy “eyewash.”
Then why does the same judiciary treat men’s constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 as optional in matrimonial cases?
Why is self-identification and dignity fast-tracked for one group, while men’s dignity in false cases and custody battles is routinely ignored? Is constitutional activism selective?
#AtulSubhashAmarRahe #JusticeIsDue
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jodhpur/r…

English
















