Facts:
The petitioner who was employed as a woman constable in the UP Police, identified
as male. Having been diagnosed with gender dysphoria by an authorised medical
practitioner, the Petitioner was desirous of undergoing sex reassignment surgery
(SRS) and applied to the Director General of Police for sanction but received no
response and therefore was constrained to file the petition.
Court Decision and Reasoning:
It was argued that in view of the direction of the Supreme Court under NALSA, the
Respondents are not justified in withholding the application of the petitioner. It was
also argued that Section 15 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act,
2019, deals with health care facilities including Sex Reassignment Surgery and
hormonal therapy. The Court held that if a person suffers from gender dysphoria, such
a person does possess a constitutionally recognized right to get his/her gender
changed though surgical intervention. It held that if this vested right in a person is not
acknowledged, it would only encourage ‘gender identity disorder syndrome’ and at
times such a problem may be fatal as such a person may suffer from disorder, anxiety,
depression, negative self-image and dislike of one’s sexual anatomy. Thus, it held that
there was no justification for the Director General of Police to withhold the application
of the petitioner and directed him to consider the application and dispose of it.
Significance:
Not only did the court recognise the constitutional right to get sex reassignment
surgery, it also asked the State government whether it has framed any law in
compliance with directions issued by the Supreme Court in NALSA and directed it to
frame such rules Act at par with the Central legislation that has been referred to
hereinabove and file a comprehensive affidavit as to what steps have been taken in
compliance.