Facts:
The Petitioner in this case was a transman who wanted to change his name and
gender in his degree certificate which was denied by the Respondent University.
Therefore, he filed a petition seeking direction for such change in name and gender in
educational records.
Court Decision and Reasoning:
Before the High Court the Respondent University argued that applications for changes
in degree certificates would be considered only if made within a short span of time,
and since the petitioner had approached the university after several years it had
rejected it. The Court rejected the Respondent’s contentions and held that there is no
dispute about petitioner having undergone gender change surgery, his change of
gender and name and that he had already obtained change of name and gender in
his bachelor’s degree Certificate and other public records. Relying on the judgement
of the Supreme Court in NALSA of the Karnataka High Court in Christina Lobo’s case,
where it was held that the right to legal recognition of gender identity was guaranteed
under Article 21 of the constitution, it directed the Petitioner to submit his Original
Marks Cards and Degree Certificate to the University and directed the University to
take action within 4 weeks to issue the revised degree certificate.
Significance:
This case is significant because the Court held that as there are innumerable
instances of change of name and gender awaiting consideration before
Universities/Educational Institutions, it would be appropriate for the authorities to
process applications for change of name and gender upon receipt of requests keeping
in mind ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in NLSA’s case (supra) and this
Court in Christina Lobo’s case (supra) instead of driving all applicants to Court.