Point of Law : Rule 50 of the Regulations of 2016 provides for a relaxation on the application of the Regulations whenever any provision thereof causes hardship in any particular case.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 being the authorities under the Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 being the authorities under the Board of Secondary Education Assam (for short, SEBA) and the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council (for short, AHSEC), Mr. Girin Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 being the District Magistrate Sonitpur.

2. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, we are not required to hear the respondent No.4 being the authorities under the Don Bosco High School Tezpur, although a learned counsel on an earlier occasion in the hearing had represented the said respondent.

3. The petitioner Paridhi Prisha Saikia aged about 21 years was born on 25.11.1998 as a male and was christened as Jishnu Kanti Saikia. Over the years, there were certain physical and mental changes in the petitioner resulting in the medical opinion given by the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences, Bangalore whereby the petitioner has been diagnosed as extracted below :

“Summary: 15 year old child, temperamentally easy going, nil contributory personal & past history, family history of psychosis and anxiety in 1st degree relative, presented with history of gender dysphoria, and a consistent desire to become a girl since the age of 5 years, manifested in pretend play, preference of play activities, preference of friends. H/O Low mood, decreased concentration, easy fatigability and repeated attempts at DSH (8 till date) for the past 6 months. With Facing ostracization and subject to bullying & moderate dysfunction.”

4. The medical opinion is that the petitioner is afflicted by the state of ‘gender dysphoria’.

5. Section 2 (k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (for short, the Act of 2019) inter alia defines "transgender person" to mean a person whose gender does not match with the gender assigned to that person at birth and includes trans-man or trans-woman (whether or not such person has undergone sex reassignment surgery or hormone therapy or laser therapy or such other therapy). Section 2(k) of the Act of 2019 is extracted as below :

“2(k) transgender person" means a person whose gender does not match with the gender assigned to that person at birth and includes trans-man or trans-woman (whether or not such person has undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery or hormone therapy or laser therapy or such other therapy), person with intersex variations, genderqueer and person having such socio-cultural identities as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta.”

6. A trans-woman is given the meaning of a woman who was assigned male at birth. Trans-women have a female gender identity, may experience gender dysphoria, and may transition.

7. As there is a medical opinion formed that the petitioner is in the state of gender dysphoria, the petitioner would have to be understood to be a trans-woman and being a trans-woman, the petitioner would be within the definition of transgender person as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act of 2019.

8. In the process the petitioner had obtained the Aadhaar and PAN Card wherein the name of the petitioner is shown as Paridhi Prisha Saikia.

9. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the authorities in the SEBA and the AHSEC that the name incorporated in the marksheets and certificates issued to the petitioner by the two authorities for the Class X and Class XII examinations be changed to Paridhi Prisha Saikia.

10. A further issue is raised by referring to the provisions of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 22 and paragraph 135.2 of the judgment rendered in National Legal Service Authority Vs. Union of India and others (for short, NALSA judgment) reported in (2014) 5 SCC 438 that the petitioner has the right to