In a landmark judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court, led by Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, has quashed the Uttarakhand School Education Board’s decision to deny the change of name and gender in educational certificates of a transgender petitioner, Shreyansh Singh Bisht. The court directed the state authorities to amend the existing regulations in line with the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, emphasizing the evolving legal landscape that mandates recognition of transgender individuals’ rights.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, formerly known as Ms. Seema Bisht, underwent sexual reassignment surgery in 2020 and legally changed his name and gender. Despite holding an identity card issued by the District Magistrate, Nainital, under Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, his request to update his name and gender in his educational certificates was denied by the Uttarakhand School Education Board. The Board cited that his case was not covered under Clause 27 of Chapter-12 of its Regulations, which only allows changes to names that are obscene, abusive, or disrespectful.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The legal crux of the matter involved the interpretation of the rights conferred under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and whether the Board’s regulations aligned with these statutory rights. The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014), which recognized the right of transgender individuals to self-identify their gender and mandated legal recognition of this identity.
Justice Tiwari noted that the current regulations of the Uttarakhand School Education Board, established prior to the Supreme Court’s decision and the enactment of the 2019 Act, do not reflect the evolving legal protections afforded to transgender persons. Quoting the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Jeeva M. v. State of Karnataka, Justice Tiwari emphasized that state authorities should not force transgender individuals to approach courts repeatedly to seek changes in official documents post gender reassignment.
Important Court Observations
Justice Tiwari made critical observations about the inaction of the State Government in amending outdated regulations, stating:
“Delay on the part of State Government is against public interest and is also against the spirit of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.”
The Court further underscored the necessity for regulations to adapt, stating:
“Regulation 27 cannot remain static. Uttarakhand School Education Board, which is responsible for incorporating change in the name/sex of a student in the certificates, has recognized the right of transgender persons and has submitted a proposal seeking permission to amend the Regulations. State Government, however, is sitting tight over the matter.”
The High Court quashed the rejection order dated August 18, 2021, issued by the Uttarakhand School Education Board and allowed the petition. It directed the Secretary of the School Education Department, Government of Uttarakhand, to decide on the proposed amendments to Regulation 27 in line with the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, within three weeks. Following this decision, the Board is instructed to reconsider the petitioner’s application promptly.
Representation
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Mr. Amanjot Singh Chadha. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, appeared for the State of Uttarakhand, and Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat represented the other respondents in the case.
