ISSUE
Whether the court can direct the Police to appoint Nangai-III, a woman who does not have a uterus, to the post of police constable she was selected for?
KEY FACTS
Nangai-III (name changed) was selected for the post of grade II woman police constable. Before her appointment, she was required to undergo a medical examination which revealed the absence of a uterus or ovaries in her body. The medical report noted that she was ‘transgender’. Nangai-III identifies as a woman and all her identity documents reflect this . Only her community certificate from a tahsildar referred to her as a ‘selvan’ (man) instead of ‘selvi’ (woman). She argued that being labelled transgender was unjust and this was a mistake.
The Police sought a second medical opinion but no examination was conducted. Meanwhile, her appointment was delayed. Nangai-III made multiple representations and filed a petition seeking her appointment after receiving no response.
DECISION & REASONING
The court noted that it had examined the question of who is ‘transsexual’ or ‘transgender’ in the context of police recuriment in its earlier decisions (Nangai v. Superintendent of Police and Nangai-II v. Director General of Police). Relying on NALSA v. Union of India the court affirmed an individual’s right to self-identify their gender.
The court held that Nangai-IIIwas female. The lack of a uterus or one mistake in a document did not make her transgender. The court ordered the police to appoint her as a police constable and depute her for training within eight weeks.
SIGNIFICANCE
The court highlighted that the absence of uterus hould be considered only as a congenital defect. Further, medical examinations should not be the deciding factor for a person’s gender identity.