Plea in Delhi High Court challenges requirement of sex change certificate for re-issuance of passport to transgender persons

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the response of the Central government on a petition challenging Passport Rules, 1980 to the extent that it requires a sex change certificate from a hospital to enable a transgender person to get her passport re-issued as "Female". (Lasya Kahli Singh vs UOI).Notice was issued to the Central government by a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh..The petitioner, Lasya Kahli Singh, had changed her name and her gender from male to female in December 2019..The petitioner was, thereafter, able to get her Aadhar Card, PAN Card and Voter ID re-issued with requisite changes to her name and gender. .The petitioner was, however, told by the Regional Passport Office concerned to produce a "sex change certificate in hand by a surgeon" in order to get her passport re-issued as Female in terms of Entry in Serial Number 39 in Table 3 of the Passport Rules, 1980. .The petitioner was informed that her old passport had been cancelled and the new passport had been put on hold for want of the certificate. .It was the petitioner's concern that she would not be able to travel to Bangkok, Thailand for gender reassignment surgery without the passport. .The petitioner argued that the requirement to produce certificate from hospital that one "underwent sex change operation successfully" is arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India and others. .Asking for any documents regarding her gender reassignment surgery would also be in violation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the petitioner submitted. .The petitioner also contended that insistence on sex reassignment surgery for an individual to identify or change their sex/gender is unnecessary and violative of the choice of the individual with respect to undergoing a surgical procedure to reflect the transition. .The petitioner was represented by Advocates Siddharth Seem, Oindrila Sen.