ISSUE
Whether the educational board’s refusal to change Tamal’s name and gender in his educational certificates was wrong in law?
KEY FACTS
Tamal identified as male but had been assigned female at birth. He had struggled with gender dysphoria and, on the basis of multiple medical consultations, had decided to undergo sex-reassignment surgery.
Tamal declared his name change before a magistrate after the surgery. His father then applied for new educational certificates which would reflect the change in name and gender. However, the Council of Higher Secondary Education (the “Council”) rejected his application. Tamal challenged the Council’s order in the High Court.
DECISION & REASONING
Tamal cited the Supreme Court decision in NALSA v. Union Of India, the Madras High Court decision in S. Swapna v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Prithika Yashini v. State of Tamil Nadu to argue against the Council’s order. The Council argued that it was not mandated to issue new educational certificates under any statute. It also argued that issuing a new certificate might raise the question of how a boy has completed education at a girls school.
The court noted that no questions had been raised about Tamal’s identity and he had a right to assert it. Thus, it suspended the Council’s order. It also ordered the Council to endorse Tamal’s self-declared name and gender in all educational records. It directed the president of the Council to ensure that the certificates are issued within 4 weeks after the order has been received.
SIGNIFICANCE
This case maintained a person’s right to self-identify their gender and have any changes to name and gender reflected in official documents.