In a landmark judgment, the Uttarakhand high court has set aside the school education board’s decision to deny changes in name and gender on educational certificates for transgender individuals.
A single judge Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari delivered the verdict.
Petitioner Shreyansh Singh Bisht, previously known as Seema Bisht, underwent sexual reassignment surgery in 2020 and subsequently legally changed his name and gender.
Despite these changes being officially recognized in documents such as his Aadhaar card and through a certificate issued by the District Magistrate, the Uttarakhand school education board rejected his request to update his educational certificates. The board cited that the request did not fall under the provisions of Regulation 27.
The petitioner’s counsel argued, “The name and gender of the petitioner have already been legally changed and recognized in official documents. The District Magistrate has exercised his statutory powers to issue a certificate and identification card to the petitioner. Thus, the board’s rejection of this plea is unsustainable.” The counsel pointed out that the only justification provided by the board was that the petitioner’s request did not meet the criteria under Regulation 27, which addresses cases where a name is obscene, abusive, or disrespectful.
In contrast, the board’s counsel argued, “The petitioner’s request could not be accepted as the existing regulations only permit changes when a name is deemed obscene, abusive, or disrespectful, which is not the situation here.”
In reviewing the case, the court referenced the landmark Supreme Court judgment in NLSA vs. Union of India (2014), which affirmed the right of transgender individuals to self-identify their gender and mandated legal recognition of this identity.
The high court overturned the school education board’s rejection order dated August 18, 2021, and allowed the petition. The court instructed the school education department secretary to decide on the proposed amendments to Regulation 27 in accordance with the Transgender Persons Act, 2019, within three weeks. The board was also directed to promptly reconsider the petitioner’s application after this decision.
