Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.

    SUBMIT

Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence

Disclaimer:

Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
News18 English
News18 » India
1-min read

Madras HC Issues Notice to Centre on PIL over Passport Rules on Sex Reassignment Surgery

The petitioner said the judgment had authoritatively held that any insistence for Sex Reassignment Surgery for declaring one's gender was 'immoral' and 'illegal'.

PTI

Updated:November 13, 2019, 4:51 PM IST
facebookTwitter Pocket whatsapp
Madras HC Issues Notice to Centre on PIL over Passport Rules on Sex Reassignment Surgery
File photo of the Madras High Court.

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.

Get the best of News18 delivered to your inbox - subscribe to News18 Daybreak. Follow News18.com on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, TikTok and on YouTube, and stay in the know with what's happening in the world around you – in real time.

Read full article
Next Story
Next Story

facebookTwitter Pocket whatsapp

Live TV

Countdown To Elections Results
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results