Manipur High Court | All State Establishments Obligated to Record Transgender Person’s New Name and Gender in Official Documents
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Manipur Single Bench of Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma held that every establishment within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 is bound to record the new name and gender of transgender persons as per the certificates issued by the District Magistrate under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The Court directed the concerned educational boards, university, and medical council to issue fresh educational and registration certificates reflecting the petitioner’s new name and gender identity. Further, the Court instructed the State Government to ensure incorporation of these provisions in all existing rules, regulations, and by-laws across establishments in Manipur.
The writ petition was filed by an individual who was originally recorded as a male under the name ‘Boboi Laishram’ in educational and professional documents, including matriculation, higher secondary, MBBS, and medical registration certificates. The petitioner underwent gender reassignment surgery on 08 October 2019 and thereafter applied to the District Magistrate, Imphal West for recognition under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. Pursuant to Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the District Magistrate issued a transgender certificate, Form-3, and an identity card reflecting the petitioner’s new name as ‘Dr. Beoncy Laishram’ and gender as female. The petitioner also updated her Aadhaar, voter identity card, and PAN card with the new particulars.
Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Board of Secondary Education Manipur (BOSEM), Council of Higher Secondary Education Manipur (COHSEM), and Manipur University (MU) on 16 February 2024, requesting that her educational certificates be corrected to reflect her new name and gender. These authorities did not grant the request. As a result, the petitioner approached the Court seeking directions for correction of her name and gender in educational and professional certificates, and also for the issuance of guidelines so that transgender persons would not be required to repeatedly approach courts for similar relief.
The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Ms. Jayna Kothari and advocate Md. Murad Sareef, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA) (2014) 5 SCC 438, wherein the right to self-perceived gender identity was recognized as integral to Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Reliance was also placed on various High Court judgments including those from Madras and Karnataka which recognized the right of transgender persons to update their names and gender identity in official documents.
The petitioner argued that the refusal of authorities to update her records contravened Sections 6 and 7 of the Transgender Act, 2019 and Annexure-I of the Transgender Rules, 2020, which explicitly list educational certificates as official documents that must reflect the new identity of transgender persons.
The State respondents, represented by Government Advocate Mr. Th. Sukumar, submitted that their responsibility was limited to issuing the transgender certificate, which had already been done. The State had no further role in correcting educational certificates. Counsel for BOSEM, Mr. N. Khelemba, contended that the Board’s regulations contained no provision for changing name and gender upon gender reassignment surgery, and that judgments of other High Courts were not binding on Manipur High Court.
The COHSEM, represented by senior counsel Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, stated that correction of higher secondary certificates could only follow once matriculation certificates were corrected. Counsel for Manipur University, Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, echoed this view, stating that corrections must originate from the earliest certificate. He also pointed to an inconsistency in the transgender certificate issued by the District Magistrate, where the petitioner’s original name was incorrectly recorded as ‘Boiboi Laishram’ instead of ‘Boboi Laishram.’
The Court considered the statutory framework of the Transgender Act, 2019 and the Transgender Rules, 2020. Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Act confer the right to recognition as transgender, application to the District Magistrate for a certificate of identity, and issuance of revised certificates upon gender reassignment surgery. Section 7(3) stipulates that persons issued certificates under Sections 6 and 7 are entitled to change their first name in all official documents, including educational certificates as per Annexure-I of the Rules. Section 20 clarifies that the Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law.
The respondents argued that corrections must begin from the initial educational authority. The Court observed that the Act does not impose such a requirement, and that each establishment independently has an obligation to update records. The objection regarding typographical inconsistency in the petitioner’s transgender certificate was noted, but the Court deemed it a minor error that could not justify denial of rights.
The Court recorded that “from a conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Act, a transgender person has a right to choose a self-perceived gender identity apart from the binary division of male and female.” It further stated that “if a transgender person has undergone gender reassignment surgery, on the basis of the certificate issued by the concerned hospital, such person has a right to apply for a revised certificate incorporating the new gender self-adopted post-surgery.”
Justice Sharma observed that “Sub-Section 3 of Section 7 stipulates that the transgender certificate issued under Section 6 and revised certificate under Sub-section (2) of Section 7 with the new gender post-surgery, shall be entitled to change the first name of the transgender person with the new gender (male or female) in the birth certificate and in all official documents relating to the identity of such transgender person.”
The Court noted that “Rule 2(d) read with Annexure-I of the Transgender Rules, 2020 provides 18 official documents and at Sl. No. (3) mentions the education certificate issued by a school, board, college, university or any such academic institution.” It observed that Section 20 mandates reading the provisions of the Act into all existing laws. “This being a special statute and in absence of any similar provision in the existing act and rules, the provision of Transgender Act, 2019 especially those of Section 6 & 7 have to be read into the existing act/rule/regulation/byelaws with the help of Section 20 of the Act.”
In rejecting BOSEM’s argument, the Court stated that “the provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of the Act have to be read into the rules/bye-laws/regulations of the board in terms of the provision of Section 20 of the Act, read with Rule 2(d) Annexure-I of the Transgender Rules, 2020.” Similarly, the Court did not accept COHSEM’s and MU’s contentions that corrections must begin with the earliest certificate. It stated that “the last or intermediary establishment does not require to wait for the first establishment to make the necessary correction. Any establishment, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, has an obligation under Section 10 of the Act to make necessary correction for the new name and gender of the transgender person recorded in the certificates in terms of Sections 6 & 7 of the Act, without waiting for such correction by the initial institute.”
Regarding the discrepancy in the District Magistrate’s certificate, the Court observed that “this is a simple typographical mistake and the right of the transgender person to change her first name and gender cannot be denied on this technical issue.” The Court clarified that the original name of the petitioner is to be read as ‘Boboi Laishram.’
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued specific directions. It directed BOSEM, COHSEM, Manipur University, and Manipur Medical Council “to issue fresh education certificates under the new name and gender of the petitioner as ‘Beoncy Laishram’ & gender as ‘female’ in place of the original birth name ‘Boboi Laishram’ & gender as ‘male’, in terms of the provision of Sections 6, 7, 10 & 20 of the Transgender Act, 2019 and Rule 2(d) read with Annexure-I of the Transgender Rules, 2020 and on the basis of certificates issued by District Magistrate, Imphal West under the provision of Sections 6 & 7 of the Transgender Act, 2019 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
The Court further ordered that “in all existing act/bye-laws/rules/regulations of any establishment within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act within the territory of State of Manipur, the provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of the Right of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 shall be incorporated.” Until incorporation, “the provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of the Right of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 shall be deemed to be read into and incorporated in all the existing act/bye-laws/rules/regulations in terms of the provision of the Section 20 of the Act.”
Additionally, the Chief Secretary of the Government of Manipur was directed “to issue necessary directions to all the establishments as directed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate; Md. Murad Sareef, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Th. Sukumar, Government Advocate; Mr. N. Khelemba, Advocate for Mr. I. Denning, Advocate; Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. U. Augusta, Advocate; Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, Advocate
Case Title: Dr. Beoncy Laishram v. State of Manipur & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 392 of 2024
Bench: Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma
