Supreme Court reserves decision on the recognition of gender identity of transgender persons in India


In a case that has the potential to break the binary gender norms of male and female in law and administrative practices in the country, the Supreme Court on 29th October, 2013 reserved its judgment on the question of recognition of identity of transgender persons in India. The Division Bench of Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan and Justice A.K. Sikri was hearing a public interest litigation, National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 400 of 2012] filed in October, 2012. The petition sought several directions from the Court, including granting of equal rights and protection to transgender persons; inclusion of a third category in recording one’s sex/gender in identity documents like the election card, passport, driving license and ration card; and for admission in educational institutions, hospitals, access to toilets, amongst others.

Senior Advocate and Director, Lawyers Collective, Mr. Anand Grover appeared on behalf of Laxmi Narayan Tripathy, a famous hijra activist, and an intervener in the matter. Addressing the Bench on the questions raised in the Petition, Mr. Grover pointed out that gender is now understood as a continuum or a range, which is not restricted to the binary of male and female gender alone and which may be different from a person’s biological sex. A person may identify in the gender, which does not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, for example, a person, who is assigned female sex at birth, may identify as male or may identify as transgender, that is, other than male or female.

Mr. Grover argued that a person’s sense or experience of gender is integral to their core personality and their sense of being. Everyone has a right to be recognised in their chosen gender. This right lies at the heart of personal autonomy and freedom of persons. He further argued that recognition of gender identity should not be dependent on medical requirements, that is, one should not be required to undergo any medical procedure like hormonal therapy or sex reassignment surgery (SRS), in order to get legal recognition. At the same time, if one wishes to undergo any medical procedure, one should have access to free and quality health services, including SRS in public hospitals.

Reading Articles 14 and 15 (equality and non-discrimination), 19 (fundamental freedoms) and 21 (right to life) together, Mr. Grover submitted that the State has a duty to recognise the self-identified gender of all persons and should take necessary legal and administrative steps to accord such recognition in all identity documents, whether issued by the State or private entities and which indicate a person’s sex/gender, including birth certificates, educational certificate, passport, ration card and driving license. He further argued that the Constitution itself had recognised gender, which was included in the term ‘sex’ used in Article 15. He thus noted that the constitutional guarantee of equality applies to all and no one can be discriminated by the State on the ground of ‘gender identity’ under Article 15.

Mr. Grover asserted that there can be no justification for the State not recognising gender identities, other than male and female, especially when India has a rich tradition of persons who identify as the third gender. He traced the history of third gender identity to ancient religious and other texts and referred to the prominent role of the Hijra community in the royal courts of the Mughal rulers. However, the British criminalised the entire class of hijras in the 19th century, by categorizing them as a ‘criminal tribe’ and denuding them of their civil rights. The impact of criminalisation is still felt in many local laws even today, for instance, Section 36A was introduced in 2012 in the Karnataka Police Act, 1964, which provides for “registration and surveillance of Hijras who indulged in kidnapping of children, unnatural offences and offences of this nature.”

The Union of India, through the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MOSJE), submitted they were in principle in agreement with the submissions pertaining to the recognition of transgender persons in law and that they have set up an expert committee on the issues relating to transgender persons and would take into account all the concerns raised by the Petitioner and the Interveners.

The Bench gave two weeks of time to the parties to file their written submissions and reserved the judgment.


  1. Solomon come to Judgement ?

    To millions of harassed bureaucrats , that is how Supreme Court’s order of yesterday might appear

    * WHAT ?

    > Bureaucrats must not function on verbal instructions from superiors and the political executives , as it leads to favoritism and corruption

    > Fixed tenures for bureaucrats and the setting up of a Civil Services Board ( CSB ) , to advise governments on transfers , postings , promotions and disciplinary actions

    * WHY ?

    Supreme Court advanced following reasons :

    # In the present political scenario , the role of civil servants has become complex and onerous

    # Often , they have to take decisions with far reaching consequences in the economic and technological fields

    # Their decisions must be transparent and in public interest. They should be fully accountable to the community they serve

    * HOW ?

    > Each level of bureaucrat must send their ” decisions ” to the lower level , in writing . ( Will emails do ? )

    > If a bureaucrat receives ” verbal ” decision from his superior , he shall make appropriate noting on the file . ( Shall he record that he does not agree with this decision – and why – but is forced to take it under verbal order ? )

    * RESULT ?

    > Decision making process , which has already considerably slowed down over the past one year , will come to a grinding halt , for the simple reasons that , at the time of taking a decision ,

    * there is absence of adequate / impeccable data on which to base decision ( – concerned vested interest parties will ensure that relevant data / facts / figures are never revealed ! )

    * there is no pre-existing and well laid-out ” Policy Framework ” , governing the issue at hand

    * no bureaucrat – or his political boss – will ever want to take a decision , which , successors to follow , will quote as a ” precedent ” and not based on recorded Policy Framework


    > Is there here , some confusion between a ” Wrong ” decision and a ” Dishonest ” decision ? Don’t millions of honest people continue to take decisions , which in hindsight , appear wrong ?

    > Isn’t a ” Dishonest ” decision one which got taken , solely for the benefit of the decision-taker ( or his family / friends etc ) ?

    > Are we trying to replace honest human ” Judgement ” by some rigid , hide-bound rules ? by some computer algorithms ?

    Historian Arnold Toyanbee , once said :

    ” Only two things are certain in life – death and taxes ”

    From now on , in India , it will be – death and delays

    Only time will tell whether this decision of the Supreme Court , was ” Right ” or ” Wrong ” , but we are sure of one thing : this is an ” Honest ” decision

    * hemen parekh ( 01, Nov 2013 )

  2. Like Mr. Grover said, that a person’s sexuality is internal and what one thinks inside. And he/she shouldn’t be subjected to medical procedures. If we go by this argument, then this allows all the male to take advantages of females like female reservation in colleges, even entry into ladies compartment of the metro arguing that inside one is a female or take part in female athletics ( tephe famous case of pinky) How will one validate one’s claim of specific gender if you don’t wish him/her to undergo medical procedures.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here