Question Description
Parliament has made into law the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, which had been framed for the welfare of transgender persons. The community had organised protests across the country, urging changes to the Bill, claiming that in the form in which the Central government had conceived it, it showed a poor understanding of gender and sexual identity. Activists had problems right from the beginning, starting with the name. T ransgender was restrictive, they argued, and it showed a lack of understanding of the complexities in people who do not conform to the gender binary, male/ female. Charging that the Bill had serious flaws, because of this basic lack of comprehension about gender, some activists also wrote an alternative wish Bill, outlining their demands.Activists chastised the Union government for failing to live up to the opportunity to ensure that fundamental rights are guaranteed to all people regardless of their sex characteristics or gender identity. Rejecting Transgender as the nomenclature, they suggested instead that the title should be a comprehensive "Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics (Protection of Rights) Bill", and in definition, sought to introduce the distinction between transgenders and intersex persons upfront. Members of the community perceive transgender as different from intersex, and were insistent that the distinction be made in the Bill.While the community is miffed that the Bill has become an Act without any effort to make valid or relevant changes to its original composition, it worries about how implementation will address the pressing needs of the community. It only hopes that the National Council for Transgender Persons will allow for a more favourable implementation of the law, and thus provide more elbow room for genuine representations of the community that the Bill itself failed to accommodate.Royappa got married to Srija. When the parties submitted a memorandum for registration of marriage, Registrar refused to register the same. Registrar had the opinion that a "Bride" can only refer to a "Woman".In the case on hand, Srija is a transgender and not a woman. Questioning the said decision, Srija filed a writ petition in the High Court. Based on the authors reasoning in the passage above, what kind of interpretation should the High Court give:a)Court should give restrictive interpretation because law has to be enforced as it is.b)Court should refer the matter back to the Registrar because the matter does not fall in its domain.c)Court should give beneficial and expansive interpretation considering Srija a bride.d)Court should liberally approach the case and exhort the Parliament to appropriately amend the law.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Parliament has made into law the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, which had been framed for the welfare of transgender persons. The community had organised protests across the country, urging changes to the Bill, claiming that in the form in which the Central government had conceived it, it showed a poor understanding of gender and sexual identity. Activists had problems right from the beginning, starting with the name. T ransgender was restrictive, they argued, and it showed a lack of understanding of the complexities in people who do not conform to the gender binary, male/ female. Charging that the Bill had serious flaws, because of this basic lack of comprehension about gender, some activists also wrote an alternative wish Bill, outlining their demands.Activists chastised the Union government for failing to live up to the opportunity to ensure that fundamental rights are guaranteed to all people regardless of their sex characteristics or gender identity. Rejecting Transgender as the nomenclature, they suggested instead that the title should be a comprehensive "Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics (Protection of Rights) Bill", and in definition, sought to introduce the distinction between transgenders and intersex persons upfront. Members of the community perceive transgender as different from intersex, and were insistent that the distinction be made in the Bill.While the community is miffed that the Bill has become an Act without any effort to make valid or relevant changes to its original composition, it worries about how implementation will address the pressing needs of the community. It only hopes that the National Council for Transgender Persons will allow for a more favourable implementation of the law, and thus provide more elbow room for genuine representations of the community that the Bill itself failed to accommodate.Royappa got married to Srija. When the parties submitted a memorandum for registration of marriage, Registrar refused to register the same. Registrar had the opinion that a "Bride" can only refer to a "Woman".In the case on hand, Srija is a transgender and not a woman. Questioning the said decision, Srija filed a writ petition in the High Court. Based on the authors reasoning in the passage above, what kind of interpretation should the High Court give:a)Court should give restrictive interpretation because law has to be enforced as it is.b)Court should refer the matter back to the Registrar because the matter does not fall in its domain.c)Court should give beneficial and expansive interpretation considering Srija a bride.d)Court should liberally approach the case and exhort the Parliament to appropriately amend the law.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Parliament has made into law the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, which had been framed for the welfare of transgender persons. The community had organised protests across the country, urging changes to the Bill, claiming that in the form in which the Central government had conceived it, it showed a poor understanding of gender and sexual identity. Activists had problems right from the beginning, starting with the name. T ransgender was restrictive, they argued, and it showed a lack of understanding of the complexities in people who do not conform to the gender binary, male/ female. Charging that the Bill had serious flaws, because of this basic lack of comprehension about gender, some activists also wrote an alternative wish Bill, outlining their demands.Activists chastised the Union government for failing to live up to the opportunity to ensure that fundamental rights are guaranteed to all people regardless of their sex characteristics or gender identity. Rejecting Transgender as the nomenclature, they suggested instead that the title should be a comprehensive "Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics (Protection of Rights) Bill", and in definition, sought to introduce the distinction between transgenders and intersex persons upfront. Members of the community perceive transgender as different from intersex, and were insistent that the distinction be made in the Bill.While the community is miffed that the Bill has become an Act without any effort to make valid or relevant changes to its original composition, it worries about how implementation will address the pressing needs of the community. It only hopes that the National Council for Transgender Persons will allow for a more favourable implementation of the law, and thus provide more elbow room for genuine representations of the community that the Bill itself failed to accommodate.Royappa got married to Srija. When the parties submitted a memorandum for registration of marriage, Registrar refused to register the same. Registrar had the opinion that a "Bride" can only refer to a "Woman".In the case on hand, Srija is a transgender and not a woman. Questioning the said decision, Srija filed a writ petition in the High Court. Based on the authors reasoning in the passage above, what kind of interpretation should the High Court give:a)Court should give restrictive interpretation because law has to be enforced as it is.b)Court should refer the matter back to the Registrar because the matter does not fall in its domain.c)Court should give beneficial and expansive interpretation considering Srija a bride.d)Court should liberally approach the case and exhort the Parliament to appropriately amend the law.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Parliament has made into law the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, which had been framed for the welfare of transgender persons. The community had organised protests across the country, urging changes to the Bill, claiming that in the form in which the Central government had conceived it, it showed a poor understanding of gender and sexual identity. Activists had problems right from the beginning, starting with the name. T ransgender was restrictive, they argued, and it showed a lack of understanding of the complexities in people who do not conform to the gender binary, male/ female. Charging that the Bill had serious flaws, because of this basic lack of comprehension about gender, some activists also wrote an alternative wish Bill, outlining their demands.Activists chastised the Union government for failing to live up to the opportunity to ensure that fundamental rights are guaranteed to all people regardless of their sex characteristics or gender identity. Rejecting Transgender as the nomenclature, they suggested instead that the title should be a comprehensive "Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics (Protection of Rights) Bill", and in definition, sought to introduce the distinction between transgenders and intersex persons upfront. Members of the community perceive transgender as different from intersex, and were insistent that the distinction be made in the Bill.While the community is miffed that the Bill has become an Act without any effort to make valid or relevant changes to its original composition, it worries about how implementation will address the pressing needs of the community. It only hopes that the National Council for Transgender Persons will allow for a more favourable implementation of the law, and thus provide more elbow room for genuine representations of the community that the Bill itself failed to accommodate.Royappa got married to Srija. When the parties submitted a memorandum for registration of marriage, Registrar refused to register the same. Registrar had the opinion that a "Bride" can only refer to a "Woman".In the case on hand, Srija is a transgender and not a woman. Questioning the said decision, Srija filed a writ petition in the High Court. Based on the authors reasoning in the passage above, what kind of interpretation should the High Court give:a)Court should give restrictive interpretation because law has to be enforced as it is.b)Court should refer the matter back to the Registrar because the matter does not fall in its domain.c)Court should give beneficial and expansive interpretation considering Srija a bride.d)Court should liberally approach the case and exhort the Parliament to appropriately amend the law.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Parliament has made into law the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, which had been framed for the welfare of transgender persons. The community had organised protests across the country, urging changes to the Bill, claiming that in the form in which the Central government had conceived it, it showed a poor understanding of gender and sexual identity. Activists had problems right from the beginning, starting with the name. T ransgender was restrictive, they argued, and it showed a lack of understanding of the complexities in people who do not conform to the gender binary, male/ female. Charging that the Bill had serious flaws, because of this basic lack of comprehension about gender, some activists also wrote an alternative wish Bill, outlining their demands.Activists chastised the Union government for failing to live up to the opportunity to ensure that fundamental rights are guaranteed to all people regardless of their sex characteristics or gender identity. Rejecting Transgender as the nomenclature, they suggested instead that the title should be a comprehensive "Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics (Protection of Rights) Bill", and in definition, sought to introduce the distinction between transgenders and intersex persons upfront. Members of the community perceive transgender as different from intersex, and were insistent that the distinction be made in the Bill.While the community is miffed that the Bill has become an Act without any effort to make valid or relevant changes to its original composition, it worries about how implementation will address the pressing needs of the community. It only hopes that the National Council for Transgender Persons will allow for a more favourable implementation of the law, and thus provide more elbow room for genuine representations of the community that the Bill itself failed to accommodate.Royappa got married to Srija. When the parties submitted a memorandum for registration of marriage, Registrar refused to register the same. Registrar had the opinion that a "Bride" can only refer to a "Woman".In the case on hand, Srija is a transgender and not a woman. Questioning the said decision, Srija filed a writ petition in the High Court. Based on the authors reasoning in the passage above, what kind of interpretation should the High Court give:a)Court should give restrictive interpretation because law has to be enforced as it is.b)Court should refer the matter back to the Registrar because the matter does not fall in its domain.c)Court should give beneficial and expansive interpretation considering Srija a bride.d)Court should liberally approach the case and exhort the Parliament to appropriately amend the law.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Parliament has made into law the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, which had been framed for the welfare of transgender persons. The community had organised protests across the country, urging changes to the Bill, claiming that in the form in which the Central government had conceived it, it showed a poor understanding of gender and sexual identity. Activists had problems right from the beginning, starting with the name. T ransgender was restrictive, they argued, and it showed a lack of understanding of the complexities in people who do not conform to the gender binary, male/ female. Charging that the Bill had serious flaws, because of this basic lack of comprehension about gender, some activists also wrote an alternative wish Bill, outlining their demands.Activists chastised the Union government for failing to live up to the opportunity to ensure that fundamental rights are guaranteed to all people regardless of their sex characteristics or gender identity. Rejecting Transgender as the nomenclature, they suggested instead that the title should be a comprehensive "Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics (Protection of Rights) Bill", and in definition, sought to introduce the distinction between transgenders and intersex persons upfront. Members of the community perceive transgender as different from intersex, and were insistent that the distinction be made in the Bill.While the community is miffed that the Bill has become an Act without any effort to make valid or relevant changes to its original composition, it worries about how implementation will address the pressing needs of the community. It only hopes that the National Council for Transgender Persons will allow for a more favourable implementation of the law, and thus provide more elbow room for genuine representations of the community that the Bill itself failed to accommodate.Royappa got married to Srija. When the parties submitted a memorandum for registration of marriage, Registrar refused to register the same. Registrar had the opinion that a "Bride" can only refer to a "Woman".In the case on hand, Srija is a transgender and not a woman. Questioning the said decision, Srija filed a writ petition in the High Court. Based on the authors reasoning in the passage above, what kind of interpretation should the High Court give:a)Court should give restrictive interpretation because law has to be enforced as it is.b)Court should refer the matter back to the Registrar because the matter does not fall in its domain.c)Court should give beneficial and expansive interpretation considering Srija a bride.d)Court should liberally approach the case and exhort the Parliament to appropriately amend the law.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Parliament has made into law the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, which had been framed for the welfare of transgender persons. The community had organised protests across the country, urging changes to the Bill, claiming that in the form in which the Central government had conceived it, it showed a poor understanding of gender and sexual identity. Activists had problems right from the beginning, starting with the name. T ransgender was restrictive, they argued, and it showed a lack of understanding of the complexities in people who do not conform to the gender binary, male/ female. Charging that the Bill had serious flaws, because of this basic lack of comprehension about gender, some activists also wrote an alternative wish Bill, outlining their demands.Activists chastised the Union government for failing to live up to the opportunity to ensure that fundamental rights are guaranteed to all people regardless of their sex characteristics or gender identity. Rejecting Transgender as the nomenclature, they suggested instead that the title should be a comprehensive "Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics (Protection of Rights) Bill", and in definition, sought to introduce the distinction between transgenders and intersex persons upfront. Members of the community perceive transgender as different from intersex, and were insistent that the distinction be made in the Bill.While the community is miffed that the Bill has become an Act without any effort to make valid or relevant changes to its original composition, it worries about how implementation will address the pressing needs of the community. It only hopes that the National Council for Transgender Persons will allow for a more favourable implementation of the law, and thus provide more elbow room for genuine representations of the community that the Bill itself failed to accommodate.Royappa got married to Srija. When the parties submitted a memorandum for registration of marriage, Registrar refused to register the same. Registrar had the opinion that a "Bride" can only refer to a "Woman".In the case on hand, Srija is a transgender and not a woman. Questioning the said decision, Srija filed a writ petition in the High Court. Based on the authors reasoning in the passage above, what kind of interpretation should the High Court give:a)Court should give restrictive interpretation because law has to be enforced as it is.b)Court should refer the matter back to the Registrar because the matter does not fall in its domain.c)Court should give beneficial and expansive interpretation considering Srija a bride.d)Court should liberally approach the case and exhort the Parliament to appropriately amend the law.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Parliament has made into law the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, which had been framed for the welfare of transgender persons. The community had organised protests across the country, urging changes to the Bill, claiming that in the form in which the Central government had conceived it, it showed a poor understanding of gender and sexual identity. Activists had problems right from the beginning, starting with the name. T ransgender was restrictive, they argued, and it showed a lack of understanding of the complexities in people who do not conform to the gender binary, male/ female. Charging that the Bill had serious flaws, because of this basic lack of comprehension about gender, some activists also wrote an alternative wish Bill, outlining their demands.Activists chastised the Union government for failing to live up to the opportunity to ensure that fundamental rights are guaranteed to all people regardless of their sex characteristics or gender identity. Rejecting Transgender as the nomenclature, they suggested instead that the title should be a comprehensive "Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics (Protection of Rights) Bill", and in definition, sought to introduce the distinction between transgenders and intersex persons upfront. Members of the community perceive transgender as different from intersex, and were insistent that the distinction be made in the Bill.While the community is miffed that the Bill has become an Act without any effort to make valid or relevant changes to its original composition, it worries about how implementation will address the pressing needs of the community. It only hopes that the National Council for Transgender Persons will allow for a more favourable implementation of the law, and thus provide more elbow room for genuine representations of the community that the Bill itself failed to accommodate.Royappa got married to Srija. When the parties submitted a memorandum for registration of marriage, Registrar refused to register the same. Registrar had the opinion that a "Bride" can only refer to a "Woman".In the case on hand, Srija is a transgender and not a woman. Questioning the said decision, Srija filed a writ petition in the High Court. Based on the authors reasoning in the passage above, what kind of interpretation should the High Court give:a)Court should give restrictive interpretation because law has to be enforced as it is.b)Court should refer the matter back to the Registrar because the matter does not fall in its domain.c)Court should give beneficial and expansive interpretation considering Srija a bride.d)Court should liberally approach the case and exhort the Parliament to appropriately amend the law.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Parliament has made into law the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, which had been framed for the welfare of transgender persons. The community had organised protests across the country, urging changes to the Bill, claiming that in the form in which the Central government had conceived it, it showed a poor understanding of gender and sexual identity. Activists had problems right from the beginning, starting with the name. T ransgender was restrictive, they argued, and it showed a lack of understanding of the complexities in people who do not conform to the gender binary, male/ female. Charging that the Bill had serious flaws, because of this basic lack of comprehension about gender, some activists also wrote an alternative wish Bill, outlining their demands.Activists chastised the Union government for failing to live up to the opportunity to ensure that fundamental rights are guaranteed to all people regardless of their sex characteristics or gender identity. Rejecting Transgender as the nomenclature, they suggested instead that the title should be a comprehensive "Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics (Protection of Rights) Bill", and in definition, sought to introduce the distinction between transgenders and intersex persons upfront. Members of the community perceive transgender as different from intersex, and were insistent that the distinction be made in the Bill.While the community is miffed that the Bill has become an Act without any effort to make valid or relevant changes to its original composition, it worries about how implementation will address the pressing needs of the community. It only hopes that the National Council for Transgender Persons will allow for a more favourable implementation of the law, and thus provide more elbow room for genuine representations of the community that the Bill itself failed to accommodate.Royappa got married to Srija. When the parties submitted a memorandum for registration of marriage, Registrar refused to register the same. Registrar had the opinion that a "Bride" can only refer to a "Woman".In the case on hand, Srija is a transgender and not a woman. Questioning the said decision, Srija filed a writ petition in the High Court. Based on the authors reasoning in the passage above, what kind of interpretation should the High Court give:a)Court should give restrictive interpretation because law has to be enforced as it is.b)Court should refer the matter back to the Registrar because the matter does not fall in its domain.c)Court should give beneficial and expansive interpretation considering Srija a bride.d)Court should liberally approach the case and exhort the Parliament to appropriately amend the law.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.