ISSUE
Whether the termination of Nangai- II was based on a resignation letter obtained by force because of her variations in sex characteristics?
KEY FACTS
Nangai- II (name changed) was assigned female at birth and lived her entire life as a woman. She was selected for the post of a woman police constable and passed her medical test. During a routine medical check-up, the doctors performed a test and declared her a ‘pseudo-hermaphrodite’, or ‘transsexual’. The Vice Principal of the police training school called her parents and informed them of it. On the same day, Nangai-II submitted a resignation letter stating she had chest pain. Following her dismissal, she approached the court for reinstatement because her resignation had been coerced due to her variations in sexual characteristics.
DECISION & REASONING
The court referred to its earlier decision in Nangai v. Superintendent of Police. There, the court had examined the rights of transgender or transsexual persons. The court also applied the right to self-identify one’s gender as guaranteed by NALSA v. Union of India (2014). Accordingly, the court held that Nangai-II was entitled to identify as a woman and medical results could not supersede her gender identity.
Turning to the resignation letter, the court noted that it was written immediately after the results in front of Nangai-II’s parents, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Further, she did not have any chest pains at the time. Accordingly, the court declared that the letter was written involuntarily. The Court also recognised that the medical results had caused Nangai-II distress and mental agony. It expressed concern for the ostracisation she could face becaues of it and argued for greater sensitisation and empathy.
The Court reiterated its decision in Nangai. It set aside the order terminating her services and reinstated her in the same position. She may also identify herself as “third gender” in the future.
SIGNIFICANCE
The court applied NALSA by emphasising that all persons have a right to self-identify their gender. While the judgment uses the terms ‘transsexual’ and ‘transgender’, it affirms the rights of a woman who has variations in sex characteristics to retain her employment and gender identity. Notably, the Court took into account how sharing private medical information with Nangai-II’s parents and others can amount to coercion.