The Delhi High Court today sought to know the Centre's stand on a plea seeking to change the name and gender of transgenders in the official records and challenging the mandatory requirement for undergoing the medical procedure of sex change.
The central government's lawyer told Justice Vibhu Bakhru that it will seek instructions regarding the queries raised by the court as to whether change of sex was permitted without the medical procedure.
The Centre's standing counsel Monika Arora said the Transgender Bill has been sent to the parliamentary standing committee and would be introduced in the upcoming winter session of Parliament. She also said she would file an affidavit regarding the government's stand in the issue.
The court, which listed the matter for December 1, was hearing the pleas of two city-based transgenders seeking to change their names and gender from male to female in the government records.
It disposed of one of the two petitions in which the grievance of changing the name and gender in the records was addressed and the changes published in the official gazette.
In the pending petition filed through advocates Karan Sharma and Rohit Kaliyar, the petitioner has alleged discrimination by the authorities and sought "disciplinary enquiry" against them.
The court had earlier asked the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and the Controller of Publications, which publishes the Gazette, to explain what problem it had in changing the names of the two transgenders from male to female in the official records.
In support of their claims, the petitioners had referred to a Supreme Court order holding that a person's self-defined sexual orientation and gender identity was integral to their personality and a person cannot be forced to undergo medical procedures, including Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS) or hormonal therapy, as a requirement for legal recognition of their gender identity.
The two have claimed that they were MtF (male to female) trans-sexuals who, due to duality between their appearance, voice, mannerism, dressing style and their male IDs, faced discrimination in the society.
They have contended that the department officials had refused to consider their applications for change of name without a certificate stating that they had undergone SRS.
They have sought quashing of any guideline which mandates an SRS before changing the gender, as well as directions to the Centre "to constitute a board or committee for certifying the petitioner as a MtF transgender".
They have also said that "the action of respondents in refusing to allow the name change infringes the petitioner's fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution".
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
