Transgender people in Maharashtra will no longer have to go to court to update the names and identities they use on official documents, thanks to an order issued by the Bombay High Court on Tuesday requiring every educational facility in the state to allow transgender people to modify their details along with individual identities in official records with retrospective effect.

The court, comprising Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale, ruled that an educational institution cannot deny a person wanting to make adjustments to their documentation identifying themselves as transgender.

“It is an example of an individual’s identity, as well as self-identification, being denied.” Something that is neither possible nor acceptable.

Facts of the Transgender Identity Case

The bench took note of the fact that the applicant was born female but now identifies as transgender. The petitioner earned a Masters of Arts (MA) from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) now that she wishes to study law under a new name and identity (as a transgender person). However, the institution refused to consider re-issuing the petitioner’s degrees and other certificates under the new name and identity.

We see nothing compelling us to refuse to award this kind of relief, and we would appear to be entirely negligent should we were to disregard that mandamus.” “Undoubtedly, the applicant is looking for justice in line with the law but was not granted it,” the bench stated.

The bench went on to say that not only TISS but also other educational institutions in Maharashtra do not allow transgender people to update their names and identities on paperwork.

Courts observation on Transgender Identity case

“There is no explanation why the forms provided on the TISS web page, along with those for each educational facility that either falls under or is not covered by this jurisdiction over the matter, ought not to be used. They ought not to include an option for specifically these kinds of modifications, i.e., recognising an alteration in name and a modification in gender.”

“It is TISS’s responsibility to implement this alteration on its website, and it is the state government’s responsibility to communicate the appropriate instructions to all such educational institutions throughout Maharashtra,” the court ordered.

The bench objected strongly to TISS’s request that the petitioner first obtain documentation, including a birth certificate, to be updated with the updated name and identity.

“A schooling document or documents at the time of being born would not incorporate the modifications that are now sought.” That is entirely unreasonable. 

Article 21 & Transgender Identity Case

“Refusing the petitioner’s relief or accepting what TISS says that every prior record must now be updated would constitute an apparent injustice and an outright denial of fundamental rights, which include one’s right to privacy and dignity, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,” the bench opined.

The Court emphasised that TISS’s approach in the instant case was “simply erroneous” since it fails to acknowledge that issues of identity, self-identification, and gender perception do not occur at a medically identifiable point in time.

“All of the above are self-realisation subjects without predefined timelines.” “This is not to say that everyone who wants to make use of those Article 21 benefits must go with the added trauma of being required to reissue all of their paperwork from being born onwards,” the bench ruled.

What is required is acceptance and recognition of the petitioner’s rights, and TISS’s insistence on changing other records and producing previous documents was deemed obstructive by the bench.

“In the course of our analysis, it constitutes a violation of basic rights within Article 21. “Whatever must be realised is a growth throughout time and life, that is, what must be supplied to the applicant from a specific point forward with no option of going backwards in time period,” the Court stated when awarding remedy to the petitioner.

Case Name: X v. The Dean & Anr.