Right in Question:
The right of a transgender person to have their self-identified name and gender legally recognized in all official and educational documents.
Facts:
The Petitioner, originally recorded as “Boboi Laishram” (male), underwent gender reassignment surgery in 2019 and was thereafter recognized as Dr. Beoncy Laishram (female). The District Magistrate, Imphal West issued the transgender identity certificate and revised identity card under Sections 6 & 7 of the 2019 Act, and Rule 5 of the 2020 Rules, following which her Aadhaar, PAN, and Voter ID were updated. However, state education authorities BOSEM, COHSEM, and Manipur University refused to update her matriculation, higher secondary, and MBBS certificates, arguing absence of enabling provisions in their regulations. This refusal prevented her from applying for NEET-PG and continuing her professional education. She approached the High Court seeking a direction to update her educational records.
Court Decision and Reasoning:
The Court reaffirmed that the Transgender Act, 2019 draws directly from NALSA v Union of India, which recognizes self-perceived gender identity and prohibits discrimination. Reading Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 together, the Court held that once a transgender person obtains a certificate under Section 6 or a revised certificate after surgery under Section 7(2), the new name and gender must be reflected in all official documents, including educational certificates, as expressly recognized in Rule 2(d) read with Annexure-I, where educational certificates are explicitly listed.
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that no rule exists by invoking Section 20, which states that the provisions of the Act operate in addition to and override any inconsistent rules. Accordingly, Sections 6 & 7 must be read into all existing regulations of educational institutions, even if their internal rules have not yet been updated. The Court emphasized that the absence of enabling clauses in board or university bye-laws cannot defeat a statutory right. It also clarified that correction need not start from the matriculation level, each institution independently has a duty to amend documents under Section 10. A typographical inconsistency in the DM certificate (“Boiboi” instead of “Boboi”) was treated as a minor error and corrected by judicial recognition.
The High Court allowed the petition and directed the Respondents to issue fresh certificates in the Petitioner’s chosen name and gender within one month. It further directed that Sections 6 and 7 of the 2019 Act must be incorporated into all regulatory frameworks in Manipur, and until such amendments occur, the provisions are deemed to apply by force of Section 20. The Chief Secretary was ordered to ensure statewide compliance.
Significance:
This judgment confirms that transgender identity recognition must carry into all official and educational records, and clarified that the Transgender Act overrides conflicting institutional rules, thereby mandating schools, universities, medical councils, and all establishments to update and realign their regulations in accordance with self-identified gender rights.