DM’s certificate under Transgender Act conclusive proof of gender for passport: Allahabad HC
The bench said Clause 5 of the DM’s certificate allows name and gender updates in all records, and passport authorities cannot seek fresh medical tests or extra documents. PRAYAGRAJ: The certificate issued by a district magistrate under Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 is conclusive proof of a person’s gender identity for the purpose of issuance of a passport, the Allahabad High Court has ruled. A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan observed that the passport authority “cannot insist on a fresh medical examination” or “seek changes in the birth certificate” for effecting a change of gender in a passport. The court passed the order on February 10 while disposing of a petition filed by Khush R Goel, who had challenged a June 23, 2025 order of the passport authorities directing him to undergo a fresh medical examination at a clinic empanelled by them for change of gender in his passport. According to the plea, the petitioner was born a female but later identified as a transgender person. After attaining majority, he underwent gender reassignment surgery and transitioned to male. He subsequently approached the district magistrate and obtained a certificate under the 2019 Act, which entitles the holder to change name and gender in all official documents. However, when he sought correction of gender in his passport, the authorities directed him to undergo a fresh medical examination. The bench noted that Clause 5 of the certificate issued by the district magistrate specifically entitles the holder to update name and gender in all official documents. It held that once such a certificate is issued, there is no requirement for the passport authorities to demand any further medical examination or additional documents. Emphasising the object behind the enactment of the 2019 law, the court observed that Parliament brought in the statute to address the social ostracism faced by transgender persons and to ensure their dignity and equal rights, so that they are not compelled to suppress their identities contrary to their innate personality. Holding that the district magistrate’s certificate “gives a quietus to the controversy,” the court disposed of the petition and set aside the requirement of further medical examination. Courtesy : TNIE Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Not every insult to a member of the SC/ST community is an atrocity: Understand this important Calcutta High Court decision
The court also clarified that it is not enough for the accused to know the caste of the victim. A crime is committed when the insult is committed “on the ground or by reason of the person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.” Kolkata—In a landmark judgment delivered on February 11, the Calcutta High Court clarified that every insult or threat directed at a member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) is not automatically considered a crime under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A single bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), while hearing a criminal revisional application in the case of Moumita Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal, quashed the entire proceedings at the Amherst Street Police Station, including the charge sheet filed therein. The case relates to a professional dispute in the Sanskrit Department. The complainant, who belongs to the SC community and joined as an Assistant Professor on November 14, 2018, alleged that Moumita Bhattacharya, as Head of the Department, humiliated him on the basis of caste, mentally harassed him, and harmed his career. The allegations included not inviting the complainant to departmental meetings, withholding meeting resolutions, stopping undergraduate classes, preventing him from conducting examination/evaluation duties, conspiring with students, and using abusive language in online meetings. The complaint was filed on December 4, 2021. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed on April 10, 2022, and the Special Court took cognizance. Petitioner Moumita Bhattacharya filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings. Citing his qualifications, he stated that he holds a PhD in Sanskrit from Visva Bharati University, a post-doctoral fellowship, passed SLET, and has held editorial positions in various journals, and stated that the allegations are false, motivated by vengeance, and lack the essential elements of an offence under the SC/ST Act. The Court, citing several Supreme Court judgments (Sajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, Swaran Singh v. State, etc.), clarified the essential elements of Section 3(1)(r). The Court stated: “The basic elements of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) are as follows: The accused must not be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Such insult or intimidation must be with the intent to humiliate that person. And such insult or intimidation must occur in a public place or in public view.” The court further made an important observation: “Not every intentional insult or threat directed at a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe will constitute caste-based humiliation. This is only the case if the insult or threat is due to the prevalent practice of untouchability or to reinforce notions such as the historical superiority of upper castes over lower castes/untouchables, or the notions of purity and impurity.” The court also clarified that it is not enough for the accused to know the victim’s caste. The offense is made out when the insult is inflicted “on the ground or by reason of the person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.” The complaint mentioned a specific incident where the complainant was referred to as “Adarsh Sir” in an online meeting. The court made a strong comment on this: “‘Adarsh’ means ideal, and ‘Sir’ is a respectful address. This court is at a loss to understand how calling someone ‘Adarsh Sir’ can be derogatory, even if done sarcastically. This cannot, in any case, constitute an offense under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.” Applying the principles of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, the court held that even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted as completely true, they do not constitute an offense. The proceedings appear to be motivated by personal enmity and revenge. Therefore, it is appropriate to quash them under Section 482 CrPC. Geetha Sunil Pillai Courtesy: Hindi News