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 who was asked to undergo a fresh medical exam by the passport authorities to get his passport amended, the Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan, JJ., allowed the petition, holding that there was no requirement for the petitioner to produce any further documents. The Court directed the passport authority to act or issue a passport, considering the certificate and identity card of the petitioner issued under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (the Act). The Court found that impugned direction of the passport authorities violated the provisions of the Act.
Background
The petitioner was assigned female at birth but later realised that they were transgender and underwent surgery to become male. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the appropriate authorities under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued a certificate which stated that he was entitled to change his name and gender in all official documents, as well as an identity card describing his gender as male under Section 7 of the Act.
However, the petitioner’s counsel argued that, despite fulfilling all formalities, the passport authorities passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to undergo a fresh medical examination from a clinic of their panel.
The State contended that the petitioner would have to change his name and gender in the birth certificate to make the necessary amendment in the passport.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that the impugned order violated the Act and the certificate issued in connection therewith. In this regard, the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act in clause (F) states that no establishment shall discriminate against transgender persons in matters relating to employment, recruitment, promotion, and other related issues.
The Court stated that the objections taken by the State were without any firm legal foundation, and remarked that, “The Act was legislated in order to give an element of protection to transgender persons, who on account of circumstances beyond their control were born into bodies not aligned with their identities. The social ostracism of such people had led the Parliament to enact the special statute.”
The Court added that, via enforcement of the Act, transgender persons are now entitled to dignity and equal rights. They no longer have to hide their identity. In this regard, Sections 5 and 6 of the Act provided for the manner in which they could legitimise their status as transgender, which was followed by the petitioner.
The Court noted that Clause 5 of the certificate entitles a holder to change name and gender in all official documents. Official documents would include all such documents that had to be filed with the State or any entity of the State for identifying the person under the statutory provision; thus, it included a passport. The passport is also included in Annexure 1 to Schedule 2, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 (the Rules).
Furthermore, upon perusal of Section 7 read with Rule 6 of the Rules, the Court noted that the District Magistrate had issued an identity card stating his gender as male.
Thus, the Court held that the documents provided by the petitioner and the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules put an end to the controversy on this issue.
Accordingly, the Court directed the passport authority to act or issue a passport, considering the certificate and identity card of the petitioner, holding that there was no requirement for the petitioner to produce any further documents.
[Khush R. Goel v. Union of India, WRIT – C No. 5154 of 2026, decided on 10-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Kavindra Dwivedi
For the respondent: A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Vaibhav Tripathi