Manipur High Court: In the present case, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner as her plea for the change of name and gender post her gender reassignment surgery and obtaining the transgender identity card, was rejected by the authorities. A Single Judge Bench of A. Guneshwar Sharma, J., directed the authorities to make the necessary changes and held that establishments had an obligation under Section 10 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, (‘Act’) to make the correction in the name and gender based on the identity certificate issued by the District Magistrate (‘DM’), without waiting for the correction firstly to be made by the initial institute. Additionally, the Court directed to all the establishments within the meaning of the Act, in the State, to incorporate the provisions related to the right of transgender persons to change their name and gender in their official documents.
Background
The petitioner was a biological male and in all her certificates and documents, namely, Class 10th and 12th certificate, M.B.B.S. certificate, Medical Council registration certificate and other educational certificates, her name was recorded as “Boboi Laishram” and gender as male.
The petitioner underwent gender reassignment surgery on 8-10-2019 by which she changed her gender from male to female. Thereafter, as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Act and Rule 5 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 (‘2020 Rules’), she requested the DM to issue the transgender certificate. The DM thus, as per the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, changed the birth name to “Dr. Beoncy Laishram” and issued a transgender identity card under the new name with gender as female.
Subsequently, the petitioner updated her Aadhaar card, Voter ID card and PAN card based on the new name and gender. The petitioner then approached to the Chairman, Board of Secondary Education Manipur (BOSEM); the Chairman, Council of Higher Secondary Education Manipur (COHSEM) and the Registrar, Manipur University (MU), Canchipur, requesting to change gender and name on her education certificates.
Since her request for the change in name and gender in her certificates was declined by all the authorities, she approached the present Court requesting to direct the authorities to change her name and gender in the official documents according to the transgender certificate.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The issue for consideration was “whether a transgender person was entitled to update and correct his or her original name recorded in the educational qualification certificates and other official documents by the new name and gender in terms of Sections 6 and 7 read with Sections 10 and 20 of the Act and Rule 2(d) read with Annexure-I of the 2020 Rules?”.
The Court opined that even though the Courts had a practice of masking the names of the transgender persons in the judgments delivered by them, in order to protect their identity, but in the instant case, the petitioner was a pioneer in the medical field, thus, the Court had refrained from adopting the usual practice so that the present judgment becomes a torch to other transgender persons leading them to the path of access to justice.
The Court noted that the conjoint reading of Section 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Act revealed that a transgender person had a right to choose a self-perceived gender identity apart from the binary division of male and female, which was in consonance with the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of NALSA v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438. These provisions of the Act ensured their social and legal protection guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Furthermore, Section 7(3) stipulated that the transgender certificate issued under Section 6 and revised certificate under Section 7(2) with the new gender post-surgery, shall be entitled to change the first name of the transgender person with the new gender in the birth certificate and in all official documents relating to the identity of such transgender person.
The Court also observed that Rule 2(d) of 2020 Rules, read with its Annexure-I provided 18 official documents and at serial number 3 mentioned the education certificate issued by a school, board, college, university or any such academic institution, which could be changed after obtaining the gender identity card.
Additionally, the Court emphasised that ‘any establishment’ as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, did not require the initial establishment to make the necessary correction, in fact, the establishments had an obligation under Section 10 of the Act to make the correction in the name and gender based on the identity certificate issued by the DM, without waiting for the correction firstly to be made by the initial institute.
The Court pointed out that Section 20 of the Act specified that the Act would be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Thus, it was clarified that if the special law provide a new right on which the general law was silent then the principle of “generalia specialibus non derogant” shall be applied and the special law would prevail over the general law. Thus, this special law which granted the right to change name just by obtaining the identity card shall prevail over any rules, regulations etc which prevent such change or require additional documents than the ones mentioned in the Act to make the necessary changes.
The Court highlighted that the National Council for Transgender Persons headed by the Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, established under Section 16 and 17 of the Act, had power of grievance redressal of transgender persons. The Council did not have the power to function as a main adjudicating authority under the Act as the primary function of the Council was to advise the Central Government in the implementation of the Act.
Accordingly, the Court held that the transgender persons had a right to change their name and gender in the official documents and thus directed the authorities to make the necessary changes. The Court also held that establishments had an obligation under Section 10 of the Act to make the required corrections. Additionally, the Court directed that in all existing act/bye-laws/rules/regulations of any establishments falling within the ambit of Section 2(b) of the Act, in the State of Manipur to incorporate the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. Till the said incorporation was made, the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 shall be deemed to be read into and incorporated in terms of Section 20 of the Act. The Court allowed the writ petition and further directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur to issue necessary directions to all the establishments.
[Beoncy Laishram v. State of Manipur, W.P.(C) No. 392 of 2024, decided on: 19-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioners- Jayna Kothari, Sr. Advocate; Md. Murad Sareef, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents- Th. Sukumar, G.A.; Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Adv., N. Khelemba for I. Denning, U. Augusta, Anjan Prasad Sahu, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
