Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by X (petitioner), an individual who identifies as a woman but was assigned male at birth seeking legal protection and support due to the distress caused by her gender dysphoria and the apprehensions about her safety and well-being. A division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain, JJ., held that since the petitioner is major and is not at all interested in going back to the residence of her parents, she is at liberty to go back wherever she wants to stay. The petitioner has been experiencing significant distress due to her gender dysphoria and has expressed a desire for gender-affirming medical treatment. Her situation became critical when she reported anger outbursts, anxiety, and apprehensions of impulsive self-harm, leading her to seek medical assistance at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS). The clinical evaluation at IHBAS on 22-05-2024, diagnosed her with “Gender Dysphoria” and “adjustment issues,” and she was advised to undergo supportive therapy.
Her parents, though aware of her gender identity issues, were concerned for her safety and believed she might harm herself. They felt she had been misguided and sought legal intervention to ensure her well-being. This situation led to the filing of the petition where the petitioner sought the court’s help to ensure her safety and to facilitate her medical treatment without being compelled to return to her natal family, which she was adamantly against.
The Court interacted with the petitioner separately and noted her desire to be addressed as a woman and her wish to be examined and treated by a reputable medical institution. She explicitly stated she did not want to return to her parents’ home or maintain contact with them. The Court also spoke to the petitioner’s parents, who expressed concern about her safety and mental state, fearing she might harm herself under misguided influences. A doctor from IHBAS provided relevant medical records, confirming the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria and the recommended supportive therapy.
The Court further noted that creating a safe, non-coercive environment for the individual, prioritizing the individual’s wishes, and ensuring their safety and privacy, particularly for those from the LGBTQ+ community. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner is a legal adult and thus has the autonomy to make decisions about her life and medical treatments.
Thus, the Court held that the petitioner, being a major, is free to go wherever she wishes and is not required to return to her parents’ home. The Court deemed it appropriate for the petitioner to be examined and counseled by a team of doctors at AIIMS, as per her preference for a reputable medical institution. The Director of AIIMS was instructed to arrange this examination and provide a report by 10-07-2024.
As the petitioner’s safety was a primary concern, therefore, the Court directed ACP concerned to stay in touch with the petitioner and provide any assistance she might need. The Court ordered the redaction of the petitioner’s name, her relatives’ names, and other personal details in the court documents to protect her privacy.
[X v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4420, decided on 30-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Amritanand Chakravorty with Mr. Mihir Samson and Ms. Sitamsini Cherukumalli, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya and Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, Advocates with Inspr. Durga Dass Rathore and SI Vipin Kumar, PS Keshav Puram. Mr. Vikas Walia with Mr. Yash Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.3. Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel with Sahaj Karan Singh, Advocate, Dr. Mahadev Singh Sen, Asstt. Prof. IHBAS, Dr. Simran, Sr. Resident, IHBAS, Dr. Rudrani, Asstt. Prof. Deptt. CP, IHBAS.
