State Can't Insist On Sex Reassignment Surgery Certificate Of Transgender Person For Publishing Change Of Name, Gender In Gazette: Madras HC

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad added that the State should rely on the self-declaration forms and affidavits filed by trans persons and if needed, could ask for the Aadhar card or other valid ID document for publication in the official gazette. The Court also asked the State Social Welfare Department to follow the same procedure while issuing ID cards to trans persons.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Sivakumar TD, an LGBTQ rights activist, and co-founder of Nirangal, a non-profit organization focusing on gender and sexuality rights. Sivakumar had argued that the procedure adopted by the State for publishing a change of name or gender in the official gazette was unlawful and against the laws laid down by the Apex Court.

Sivakumar argued that the procedure governing the process of effecting publication of name and gender change was not available in the public domain and when he visited the office of the Department of Stationary and Printing to publish their changed name and gender, the officials insisted on production of Sex Reassignment Surgery of Third gender Identity Card issued by the State.

Sivakumar pointed out that through an RTI application, it was confirmed that the Department insisted on a medical certificate from a doctor indicating completion of surgery if the applicant had undergone the process or in the alternative demanded a copy of the third gender identity card. Sivakumar pointed out that this demand for documents was violative of the directions of the Supreme Court which had held that gender identity is completely dependent on a person's self determination and the test ought to be applied was the psychological test and not the biological test.

Sivakumar further pointed out that issuance of third-gender identity cards was restricted only to transgender persons who were assigned male at birth but wished to identity themselves as third gender of thirunangai and thus a transwoman could not identify herself as a woman.

Thus, Sivakumar argued that the procedure adopted by the State was violative of the NALSA judgment and the Yogyakarta principles. He added that the procedure was discriminatory and violative of the right to legal recognition of self-identified gender, right to equal protection of the law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Thus, he had sought directions to the department to not insist on documents indicating completion of Sex Reassignment Surgery or the third gender identity card.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 152

Case Title: Sivakumar TD v State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: WP 31702 of 2019