Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the KS Puttaswamy judgment, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the right to construct own identity is part of the fundamental right to privacy and thus, the authorities were duty-bound to give effect to the privacy right of the man.

The court also took note of Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which provided that after a transgender person underwent surgery to change gender, and after submitting an application, the District Magistrate was to issue a certificate indicating change in gender. The section further states that any person holding such certificate of identity would be entitled to change the first name in all official documents relating to the identity of the person.

“A close reading of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (retired) and Another (aadhar) Vs. Union of India and another (2018 SCC Online SC 1642) would make it clear that the right to construct the person's own identity would come within the fundamental right to privacy of the person. Therefore, every authority is required to give effect to the right of privacy and the right of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a man seeking directions to the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council and the Tamil Nadu Health and Family Welfare Department to rectify and update all his records, including name, gender and photograph, and to reflect his gender as male. He had also sought a No-Objection Certificate enabling his transfer to the Karnataka State Nursing Council.

The petitioner submitted that he was originally a transgender person registered with the TN Transgender Welfare Board and was issued an identity card under Section 6 of the Act. Later, the petitioner underwent a gender affirmation surgery in January 2024 and legally changed his name through an advertisement in the official gazette on March 27, 2024.

The petitioner submitted that after his surgery, all official identity records recorded his identity as male, and an identity certificate was also issued by the District Magistrate. It was further submitted that since the existing professional environment was hostile and non-accepting, the petitioner had decided to transfer his registration to Karnataka, for which an application was filed. However, the petitioner submitted that in the communication for verification, the petitioner was referred to as transgender man, which prompted him to approach the court.

The authorities, however, submitted that the email was addressed only based on the petitioner's available description.

The court noted that after the petitioner had acquired the certificate from the District Magistrate, it was incumbent upon all authorities to carry out the gender change. The court thus directed the authorities to carry out the changes. The court also directed that the petitioner be described as male in all future communications and no note should be made stating that the petitioner was earlier described as transgender and then as male.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Chandini Pradeep Kumar assisted by Ms. Mhanasha Devi K.R

Counsel for Respondent: Mrs. Indhu Karunakaran, Special Government Pleader

Case Title: XXX v The Tamil Nadu Nurses And Midwives Council and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 431

Case No: WP No 32460 of 2026