MS. X VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

KEY FACTS: The Petitioner is a trans person who identified as female. She was repeatedly raped and blackmailed by the accused. She lodged an FIR against the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which criminalises the rape of a woman. During the investigation, she made it clear that she identified […]

Read more

HINA HANEEFA V. STATE OF KERALA

KEY FACTS: The Petitioner, Hina Haneefa, is a trans woman. She had undergone reassignment surgery and got a transgender identity card showing her gender identity as female. She had applied to be a part of the National Cadets Corps (NCC) but was refused admission to the Girls Divisions as she was a transgender person. She […]

Read more

MANSUR RAHMAN VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE & ANR.

KEY FACTS: The Petitioner was in love with Janifer, a transgender woman and married her on 25 July 2018. The Petitioner’s parents and persons belonging to a political outfit were harassing the petitioner and threatening him because of his marriage to a transgender person.  Thus the petitioner was seeking police protection.   ISSUE: The primary issue […]

Read more

JEEVA M. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

KEY FACTS: The Petitioner was a transgender person who wanted to change his name and gender from female to male in his educational certificates, specifically his SSLC and Pre-University certificate. He had made representations to the Respondents requesting them to change his name and gender in his educational certificates but the Respondents refused to take […]

Read more

QUEERALA & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS

KEY FACTS The government of Kerala passed an order in March 2018 granting special sanction to include the option “transgender” for identification in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC). However, the option was only available to transgender persons if they had undergone sex-reassignment surgery (SRS). Queerala, an LGBTIQ rights organisation in Kerala, and Zara Sheikha, a […]

Read more

TESSY JAMES VS. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

KEY FACTS:  Tessy James is the mother of an adult transgender woman. She filed a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that some members of the transgender community had taken away her “son”. She also argued that her “son” suffered from psychiatric disorders and required evaluation and treatment. ISSUES: The issue before the High Court was whether […]

Read more

MIAN AASIA VS. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

KEY FACTS:  Mian Aasia’s Computerized National Identification Card (CNIC) had expired. Their application for a new CNIC was rejected because they had filled out their guru’s name in the place allocated for their biological father’s name. Mian Aasia challenged this decision before the Lahore High Court. ISSUES AND DECISION:  Mian Aasia argued that the CNIC card should […]

Read more

DR. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKI VS. S.S.P, RAWALPINDI

KEY FACTS: Dr Mohammad Aslam Khaki, an Islamic scholar, filed a case on behalf of the transgender community. Khaki argued for legal recognition and equal treatment of transgender persons, under the Constitution of Pakistan. ISSUES:   The Constitution of Pakistan recognises the right to equal treatment of all citizens. It allows public authorities to make provisions […]

Read more

SUNIL BABU PANT VS. NEPAL GOVERNMENT

KEY FACTS:  Representatives of the LGBTI community filed a case against the Government of Nepal for excluding gender and sexual minorities. They claimed that gender minorities lacked access to public benefits because they could not obtain citizenship cards on the basis of non-binary gender identity. They argued for legal recognition of LGBTI persons. ISSUES:  The […]

Read more

ASHISH KUMAR MISRA VS. BHARAT SARKAR

KEY FACTS:  A public interest petition was filed regarding food security of transgender persons under The National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA). Section 13 of the NFSA deals with who is considered the “head of the household”. The section is gender-specific. It mandates that the head of the household must be the eldest female, or in […]

Read more

NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA

KEY FACTS: Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalised consensual sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex for being “against the order of nature”. In 2009, before the Delhi High Court, the Naz Foundation (India) Trust (“Naz”) challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 for violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that punishing […]

Read more

SHIVAM SANTOSH DEWANGAN VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

KEY FACTS: This was a case of rape against a transgender woman. Shivam Dewangan extorted a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 from a transgender woman and engaged in sexual acts under the false pretext of marriage. He filed this petition to be released on regular bail. ISSUES & DECISION: The issue before the court was whether […]

Read more

SWEETY VS. GENERAL PUBLIC

KEY FACTS: This case dealt with the question of succession for “eunuchs” (sic) who are part of the Guru-Chela system. Sweety, a guru, filed a case in the lower courts to claim the property of her chela, Rajia, who had died. In this case, the lower court held that the mode of succession was governed by The […]

Read more

SUMITA KUMARI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

KEY FACTS: Sumita Kumari applied to be an ASHA Karmee/social worker. Sumita was a transgender woman who was unable to specify her gender as male or female. ASHA Karmee rejected her application for employment. She approached the court to argue against the prejudice she faced in the process of application. ISSUES AND DECISION: The Court considered whether […]

Read more

THE CHAIRMAN VS. ARADHANA

KEY FACTS: Aradhana, a transgender woman, filed a petition before High Court of Madras against an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Grade II constable. She argued that the advertisement did not allow a relaxation in the age limit of applications submitted by transgender persons. A single judge had passed an interim order, directing the Chairman of […]

Read more

SANGEETA HIJRA VS. STATE OF BIHAR

KEY FACTS: Sangeeta Hijra, a transgender woman filed her nomination for ‘female unreserved’ seat to contest the Patna Municipal election in 2017. The Deputy Development Commissioner of Patna (the “commissioner”) issued an order rejecting her nomination. The order stated that Sangeeta Hijra was not eligible for the ‘female unreserved’ seat because she is a transgender person. […]

Read more

K. PRITHIKA YASHINI VS. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU UNIFORMED SERVICES RECRUITMENT BOARD

KEY FACTS: K. Prithika Yashini was a transgender woman who applied for the post of Sub-Inspector. The selection process consisted of three steps: a written test, physical test and viva voce (oral examination). Despite the Supreme Court judgment in NALSA v Union of India, the application form for the selection did not account for “third gender” applicants. Prithika approached […]

Read more

GANGA KUMARI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

KEY FACTS: Ganga Kumari had applied for the post of a woman police constable. She was qualified and successfully cleared the written examination, physical efficiency tests and also underwent a medical examination. Despite being selected for the post, she was denied an appointment letter because the medical report termed her a “hermaphrodite”. After repeated unanswered […]

Read more

ATRI KAR VS. UNION OF INDIA

KEY FACTS:  Atri Kar was a transgender person who wished to participate in the selection process conducted by the State Bank of India (“SBI”) to recruit Probationary Officers. However, the application form did not contain a gender column for transgender applicants. The petitioner made a representation to SBI. It did not elicit any response. The […]

Read more

FAIZAN SIDDIQUI VS. SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL

KEY FACTS:  Faizan Siddiqui, the petitioner, was diagnosed with a congenital anomaly named Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and a Disorder of Sexual Differentiation (DSD). This meant that despite being born male, her body was not responsive to male hormones. Hence, she identified as female. She underwent surgery at a young age to remove her testes, followed […]

Read more

NANGAI-III VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

KEY FACTS: Nangai-III was selected for the post of grade II woman police constable. Before her deputation, the recruitment board (“the board”) asked her to undergo a medical examination. The examination revealed the absence of uterus in her body. Based on the medical examination report, “the board”  declared Nangai-III as a transgender person and revoked […]

Read more

NANGAI-II VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

KEY FACTS: Nangai-II (name changed) was assigned female at birth. She was selected for the post of a woman police constable. She went through a medical check-up which included a gender test during her training. The results declared her as a “Pseudo-Hermaphrodite” or “transsexual”. Consequently, the Vice Principal of the Police Recruitment School asked her […]

Read more

NANGAI VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

KEY FACTS: Nangai (name changed) was assigned and registered as female at birth. Nangai’s documents, including her birth certificate, medical records, family card and census data to the records at the all-girls’ school and women’s college she attended, all identify her as female. In 2009, she appeared for the selection process of Grade II Police […]

Read more

S. SWAPNA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

KEY FACTS: Swapna, a transgender woman applied for fresh SSLC and HSC certificates indicating her new name and gender identity. The Joint Director of School Examination (JDSE), Tamil Nadu refused to provide them to her. The JDSE stated that the current rules do not allow such name and sex changes. She had submitted her medical […]

Read more

POOJITHA B.P. VS. KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD

KEY FACTS: Poojitha is a transgender woman who wanted to change her name and gender in her educational record. She had obtained fresh identity documents, such as an Aadhar card and a passport, indicating her name and gender after undergoing sex-reassignment surgery. Even after 3 months, the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (hereafter: the “Board”) […]

Read more

N.D. VISHNU PRIYA VS. DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

KEY FACTS:  Vishnu Priya is a transgender woman who applied for changes in her identity documents after undergoing sex-reassignment surgery. She wanted her gender and name to be changed in her passport and educational certificates. She filed this case for such directions to the concerned Government authorities. ISSUES & DECISION:  The Court considered Vishnu Priya’s […]

Read more

SHRI VINOD H.N VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA

KEY FACTS: Vinod H.N., the petitioner was born intersex. In his birth documents, this was listed as a medical condition called “severe perianal hypospadasis(intersex variation). Vinod identified as male and wanted to change his name to Vinod H.N. in all important documents. He filed a writ petition before High Court seeking a name change. He […]

Read more

NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (NALSA) VS. UNION OF INDIA

KEY FACTS:  This case was filed by the National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) to legally recognize persons who fall outside the male/female gender binary, including persons who identify as “third gender”. ISSUES & DECISION:  The Court had to decide whether persons who fall outside the male/female gender binary can be legally recognised as […]

Read more

CHANCHAL BHATTACHARYA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

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 […]

Read more

K. GOWTHAM SUBRAMANIYAM VS. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, ANNA UNIVERSITY

KEY FACTS:  Gowtham was assigned female at birth. His educational certificates reflected the name and gender as assigned at birth. After graduating from Anna University in Tamil Nadu, Gowtham underwent sex-reassignment surgery. Consequently, he changed his identity in identity documents. He then approached Anna University to have his name and gender changed on his educational […]

Read more

MULLA FAIZAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT

KEY FACTS: Mulla Faizal was assigned and recorded as female at birth despite having intersex characteristics. As an adult, he had naturally developed more male characteristics and obtained medical and psychological certificates confirming his gender as male. Additionally, Mulla Faizal also underwent surgical procedures to align himself with the male gender. Consequently, when he approached […]

Read more