Madras HC issues notice to Centre on PIL over passport rules on sex reassignment surgery

The judgment had authoritatively held that any insistence for Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) for declaring one's gender was 'immoral' and 'illegal'.

Published: 13th November 2019 06:31 PM  |   Last Updated: 13th November 2019 06:31 PM   |  A+A-

Madras HC

Madras HC (File | EPS)


CHENNAI: A Chennai resident has moved the Madras High Court, seeking to declare passport rules which require submission of Sex Reassignment Surgery certificate for gender determination as "unconstitutional", saying they violate Article 21 of the Constitution that deals with personal liberty.

A division bench of Justices M Sathyanarayanan and N Seshasayee issued notice to Union Ministries of Law and Justice and External Affairs, returnable by December 12, on the petition of Sivakumar TD.

The petitioner, who has been actively involved in furthering the interests of the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer) community, referred to a Supreme Court judgment relating to the rights of transgenders in the plea.

He said the judgment had authoritatively held that any insistence for Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) for declaring one's gender was 'immoral' and 'illegal'.

The judgment also held that a person's right to choose and express a gender identity fell within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Alluding to Passport Rules 1980, with reference to change of sex in their passport and list of documents to be provided, Sivakumar said Rule 39 sought from an applicant certification from the hospital where the sex-change surgery was performed.

He contended that the rule was illegal and unconstitutional.

Highlighting the plight of transgender people who applied for passports as late as 2016, the petitioner said though the apex court had laid down clear directives that insistence on SRS certificate was illegal, they were required to produce a medical certificate for it.

He submitted that world over insistence on SRS certificate was held to be 'unnecessary' and 'violative' of the choice of the individual.

The petitioner sought the intervention of the high court to declare passport rules requiring production of SRS certificate as unconstitutional and being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp