The Allahabad High Court has held that a certificate issued by a district magistrate under Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 constitutes conclusive proof of a person’s gender identity for the purpose of correction in a passport, and the passport authority cannot insist on a fresh medical examination or additional documents.
A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan passed the order on February 10 while allowing a plea filed by Khush R Goel, who had challenged a June 23, 2025 direction of the passport authorities requiring him to undergo a fresh medical examination at an empanelled clinic for change of gender in his passport.
The petitioner was assigned female at birth but later identified as a transgender person and, after attaining majority, underwent gender reassignment surgery and transitioned to male. He obtained a certificate from the district magistrate under the 2019 Act, which entitles the holder to change name and gender in all official documents.
Despite this, when he applied for correction of gender in his passport, the authorities directed him to undergo a fresh medical examination.
The bench noted that Clause 5 of the district magistrate’s certificate specifically permits the holder to update name and gender in all official records. It held that once such a certificate is issued, there is no requirement for the passport authorities to demand any further medical test or supporting documents.
The court observed that the passport authority “cannot insist on a fresh medical examination” or require changes in the birth certificate for effecting gender correction in the passport.
Emphasising the legislative intent behind the 2019 Act, the court said Parliament enacted the law to address the social ostracism faced by transgender persons and to ensure dignity and equal rights, so that individuals are not compelled to suppress their identity contrary to their innate personality.
Holding that the district magistrate’s certificate “gives a quietus to the controversy,” the court set aside the requirement of further medical examination and disposed of the petition.
