‘Born into bodies not aligned with identity’: Allahabad High Court slams passport office for violating Transgender Rights Act

The bench highlighted that special law has allowed even transgender persons to be entitled to dignity and equal rights. (Image is enhanced using AI)

“The Special 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 high court said in its February 10 order.

The high court further pointed out that the Parliament has enacted this special statute since the trangenders face social ostracism.

The special law has allowed even transgender persons to be entitled to dignity and equal rights, and they no longer have to hide their identity, which is contrary to their innate personalities.

Observation: Violation of Special Act

• The passport authority’s order to undergo a fresh medical examination from a clinic of their panel, despite fulfilling all the required procedures, is in violation of the Special Act and the certification issued under the Special Act.
• No further documents or medical examination report is required to be produced before the passport authorities.
• The passport authority is directed to act and issue the passport with the documents and certificates provided by the petitioner.

• The petitioner has followed and obtained all the certificates as per the procedure provided under the Special Act before and after going through a gender change operation.
• The district magistrate is required to issue a certificate indicating the change in gender in the manner prescribed by the Special Act if they receive an application to revise the transgender certificate, along with the certificate issued by the medical superintendent or chief medical officer.
• Official documents would also include all such documents required for identifying a person under statutory provisions, and this would include the issuance of a passport, which is a sovereign act of the state.

‘Special Act, protection’

• The Special Act clearly stated that transgender persons should not be discriminated against in matters relating to employment, recruitment, promotion and other related issues.
• Sections 5 and 6 of the Special Act provide for the manner in which they can legitimise the status as transgender.
• Section 5 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, provides that a transgender person should file an application to the district magistrate for the issuance of the certificate of identity as a transgender person.
• Subsequently, section 6 of the Act provides that the district magistrate should issue to such an applicant a certificate of identity as transgender person, highlighting that the gender of such a person is transgender after following the relevant procedure within the prescribed time.

Background

• It was stated that the petitioner was born as a female, but later his parents realised that the child was transgender.
• The petitioner approached the appropriate authorities under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to get the required certificates.
• All the requirements were met to get the transgender certificate, and later, on attaining majority, the petitioner underwent gender change surgery and became a male.

• The petitioner also got his revised certificate and approached the passport authority to issue a passport.
• The passport authority asked him to undergo a fresh medical examination, to which the petitioner approached the present high court.

Petitioner’s plea: Passport authority violates Special Act

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Kavindra Dwivedi stated that despite fulfilling all the formalities under the Special Act, the passport authorities, by passing a June 2025 order, directed the petitioner to undergo a fresh medical examination from a clinic of their panel.
• Dwivedi argued that the said order of the passport authorities is violative of the Special Act and deserves to be quashed.

State’s plea: Reasonable demand of authority

• Appearing for the state, advocate Vaibhav Tripathi submitted that the petitioner would have to change his name and gender in the birth certificate.
• Tripathi advocated the demands of the passport authorities, calling it reasonable and pointing out that the petitioner would have to change his name and gender in the birth certificate so that the necessary amendment can be made in the passport.