Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by a transgender person challenging the rejection of their name change application in their educational documents, the Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J., allowed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order could not be sustained in the eyes of the law. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent authorities to make the required change in the educational documents and issue fresh educational marksheets/ certificates within eight weeks from the date of the order.
Background
The petitioner, a transgender person, was issued a certificate by the District Magistrate under Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (“the Act”), read with Rule 6 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 (“the Rules”), after their gender affirming surgery.
Subsequently, they applied to change their name in educational documents as per Rule 5(3) read with Annexure 1 of the Rules. However, vide the impugned order, the Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly (“Regional Secretary”), rejected the petitioner’s application, holding that the relevant provisions and Government Order did not provide any procedure for correction of name in educational documents at a belated stage, and provisions of the Act read with the Rules were held inapplicable.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that the Act was special. Further, the Court stated that Section 20 of the Act provides that provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the Regional Secretary committed a legal error by not applying provisions of the Act in the petitioner’s favour.
Based on the record, the Court held that undisputedly, the petitioner was entitled to apply terms of Rule 5(3) read with Annexure 1 of the Rules to change gender, name, and photographs in all official documents provided in Annexure 1, including any educational certificate issued by a School, Board, College, University or any such academic Institution.
While noting that the State did not produce any other judgment which could contradict the application of the Act read with the Rules, the Court referred to a similar case titled Beoncy Laishram (Dr.) v. State of Manipur, 2025 SCC OnLine Mani 430, wherein the Court directed authorities to issue all requisite certificates in terms of the Act. The Court also referred to Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2257, wherein the Supreme Court crystallized the object and importance of the Act and Rules.
The Court also referred to Vedant Maurya alias Kumari Soni v. State of U.P.,1 wherein a Coordinate Bench had, in similar circumstances, directed the authorities to change the name of the petitioner in their educational documents. Similarly, in several other cases, High Courts had directed strict implementation of the Act and its Rules in favour of transgender people to reduce the possibility of discrimination.
Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained in the eyes of the law and allowed the writ petition, thereby quashing the impugned order. The Court directed the respondent authorities to act as per law and, based on the petitioner’s application, make the required change in their educational documents and issue fresh educational marksheets/ certificates within eight weeks from the date of the order.
[Sharad Roshan Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 7265, decided on 06-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate H.R. Mishra, Advocates Akshay Kumar Srivastava, Chitrangada Narain, Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Akash Kumar Sharma and Rajesh Kumar Yadav
For the respondents: Additional Advocate General Amit Saxena and Standing Counsel Santosh Kumar Mishra
1. WRIT – C No. – 6676 of 2024