Madras High Court Directs Nurses Council to Record Transgender Man as 'Male' in Records

In a significant ruling that reaffirms the fundamental right to self-constructed identity, the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council to completely overhaul the records of a transgender man who underwent gender affirmation surgery. The court ordered that the petitioner be described only as "male" in all official documents and communications, with no reference to his previous transgender status.

A Battle for Identity

The case arose when a qualified nurse, originally registered with the Tamil Nadu Transgender Welfare Board under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, underwent gender affirmation surgery on January 12, 2024. He legally changed his name through an Official Gazette notification on March 27, 2024. All his official identity records — Aadhaar, PAN, and Voter ID — were subsequently updated to reflect his gender as male. On March 13, 2026, the District Magistrate issued a revised certificate under Section 7 of the Act, confirming the change.

However, when the petitioner sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to transfer his nursing registration to the Karnataka State Nursing Council — citing a hostile professional environment that did not accept his gender identity — the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council's communication referred to him as a "transgender man." This prompted him to approach the High Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the council to rectify all records and transfer his registration without any lingering trace of his former identity.

The Legal Framework

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, presiding over the matter, turned to the statutory scheme of the Transgender Persons Act. Section 7 of the Act provides a clear mechanism: after a transgender person undergoes surgery to change gender, they may apply to the District Magistrate for a revised certificate. Once issued, the person is entitled to change the first name in all official identity documents.

The court noted that in this case, every statutory requirement had been met — from the initial identity card under Section 6 to the revised certificate after surgery. The District Magistrate had issued the Form 4 certificate on March 13, 2026 , which made it "incumbent on every authority to carry out the gender change."

The Court's Reasoning

Justice Chakravarthy anchored the judgment in the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (retired) v. Union of India , which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 . The court declared that "the right to construct the person’s own identity would come within the fundamental right to privacy of the person."

This reasoning directly addressed the core of the dispute. The Nurses Council had argued that its communication was based solely on the petitioner's previously available description. But the court made clear that after a lawful gender change was certified, the petitioner's identity was male — and every authority must respect that.

"Every authority is required to give effect to the right of privacy and the right of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act ," the judge observed.

Key Observations

The court strongly emphasized the need for completeness in the record correction. It held that the council must "effect the correction wherever it is necessary by digital means and wherever it is necessary by physical means by scoring of the word transgender, transgender male etc., and to record it as male." Importantly, the court directed that the struck-out portions or corrections should not be communicated to any other authority.

The Court's Decision

Allowing the writ petition, the Madras High Court issued a series of directives to the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council:

First, the council must correct all records — both digital and physical — to show the petitioner purely as "male." Any mention of "transgender" or "transgender male" must be scored off.

Second, in all future communications, the petitioner shall be described only as male.

Third, when transferring records to the Karnataka State Nursing Council , "no note thereunder that petitioner was earlier described as a transgender and thereafter was declared under the male etc., should be made. It should be pure and simple male."

The court gave the council eight weeks from the date of receiving the order's web copy to complete the entire exercise, and ordered that the necessary NOC be issued for the registration transfer.

The judgment stands as a powerful affirmation that gender identity is a matter of fundamental privacy, and once lawfully changed, must be respected without caveat or qualification. It underscores that the protections of the Transgender Persons Act are not merely procedural formalities but substantive rights that demand full implementation by all public authorities.