Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration

Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration
Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration
Court	Madras High Court
Full case name	Arun kumar &Anr. versus Inspector General of Registration &Ors.
Decided	22 April 2019
Citation	W. P. (MD) No. 4125 of 2019
Court membership
Judge sitting	Justice G. R. Swaminathan
Case opinions
	A trans woman is a "bride" within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 ; Genital-normalizing surgery (referred to as sex reassignment surgery in the case) for intersex children except on life-threatening situations are prohibited.;
Decision by	Justice G. R. Swaminathan
Keywords
	Transgender Rights, Intersex Rights, Queer Relationships, Queer Marriages

Last updated September 25, 2024

Arun Kumar &Anr. versus Inspector General of Registration&Ors. (2019) is a decision of the Madras High Court which recognised trans woman as a "bride" within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and prohibited genital-normalizing surgery (referred to as sex reassignment surgery in the case) for intersex infants and children except on life-threatening situations.^[1]^[2]^[3]

The Supreme Court of India highlighted the case in its publication titled "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community" as one of the High Court judgments that effectively addressed the difficulties and obstacles experienced by queer individuals within the justice system due to their systemic marginalization.^[4]

Background

On 31 November 2018, Arun Kumar married his wife, Srija, a transgender woman, in a traditional Hindu ceremony at the Arulmighu Sankara Rameswara temple in Tuticorin; the couple subsequently sought to register their marriage with the Joint Registrar at Tuticorin under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The registrar refused to enter the marriage into the Tamil Nadu marriage registry on the basis that the marriage was prohibited, as under the Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage is conducted between a "bride" and a "groom"; the registrar indicated that Srija was not a "bride" within the meaning of the act. The couple thus filed suit in the Madras High Court seeking an order from the court compelling the Registrar to enroll their marriage.^[3]^[1]

Proceedings

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court was asked to consider whether the term ‘bride’ could include transgender women, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The petitioners further asked the court to consider whether the refusal to register the marriage of a person based on sexual orientation or gender identity violates the right to equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, protection of life and personal liberty and freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion guaranteed under the Constitution of India.^[3]

During the proceedings, the Bench was made aware that Srija was born with an intersex variation, but the school records identified her as male. Additionally, through Intersex activist Gopi Shankar, the Bench was made aware that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare regulates medical procedures, including sex reassignment surgeries, for intersex children only after a thorough assessment of the patient and obtaining written consent from the parent or guardian.^[3]

Opinion of the Court

Right to Marry for Transgender Persons

The court observed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to marry and family life. The court noted the Supreme Court's verdict in Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) , which highlighted the contradiction in recognising the right to privacy in different aspects of family life but excluding it for the decision to enter into relationships— the foundational part of family life. The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan J.M.(2018) , which recognized the right to chose a marital partner as a Constitutional right. Furthermore, the court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in NLSA v. Union of India (2014), which recognised the right to marry for a transgender person.^[3]

The court relied on the NLSA v. Union of India (2014), which held that "self-determination of gender is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression and falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." Therefore, the court held that under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, transgender women are recognized as "brides" based on their self-identification as women, meaning that those who perceive themselves as women are legally considered as such.^[3]

The court held that while Parliament may not have considered that trans women would fall under the Act, "The expression “bride”...cannot have a static or immutable meaning. As noted in Justice G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, the court is free to apply the current meaning of a statute to present day conditions."^[3]

Consequently, the court held that the marriage between Arun Kumar and Srija, being validly conducted, must be considered a lawful marriage insofar as failure to do so would violate Srija's constitutional rights. The court issued the writ sought by the couple, ordering the Registrar to enroll their marriage.^[3]

Prohibition of Genital Surgery for Intersex Children

During the proceedings, the Court was made aware that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare regulates medical procedures, including sex reassignment surgeries, for intersex children only after a thorough assessment of the patient and obtaining written consent from the parent or guardian.^[3]

The court relied on the Supreme Court's verdict in NLSA v. Union of India (2014), which established that individuals cannot be compelled to undergo medical procedures, such as gender-affirming surgery (referred to as sex reassignment surgery in the case), sterilization, or hormonal therapy, in order to obtain legal recognition of their gender identity. The court noted that the World Health Organization issued a report titled "Sexual Health, Human Rights and the Law," advocating for delaying genital-normalizing surgery until intersex children reach an age where they can independently make decisions. The court relied on the Madras High Court's ruling in S. Amutha v. C. Manivanna Bhupathy to hold that the consent of the parent cannot be considered as the consent of the child.^[3]

Furthermore, the court highlighted Article 39(f) of the Constitution of India, which declares, "the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment."^[3]^[5]

Therefore, the court directed the State Government of Tamil Nadu to prohibit genital-normalizing surgery (referred to as sex reassignment surgery in the case) for intersex infants and children except on life-threatening situations.^[1]^[2]

Compliance

On 13 August 2019, Department of Health and Family Welfare, a department of State Government of Tamil Nadu, issued an order banning genital-normalizing surgery (referred to as sex reassignment surgery in the case) for intersex infants and children except on life-threatening situations. The order stipulates that exceptions in cases of life-threatening circumstances will be granted by the government, following the recommendation of a committee formed by the Director of Medical Education, which must include the following members:^[6]

A Pediatric Surgeon or Urologist.
An Endocrinologist.
A Social Worker, Psychology Worker, or Intersex Activist.
A Government Representative holding the rank of Under-Secretary to the Government or higher.

In addition to Madras High Court's direction in the current case, the Department of Health and Family Welfare issued its order based on the Supreme Court's ruling in NLSA v. Union of India (2014) , the World Health Organization's report titled "Sexual Health, Human Rights and the Law," and expert opinions provided by the Head of the Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Facio-Maxillary Surgery at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital.^[6]

Impact

Tamil Nadu holds the distinction of being the first in Asia and the second worldwide, following Malta, to prohibit the practice of performing genital-normalizing surgeries on intersex infants and children.^[7]

The Supreme Court featured the case in its "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community" as a significant High Court judgment addressing the legal challenges faced by LGBTQ+ citizens. The publication highlighted the court's focus gender self-identification as the relevant factor in determining the legal treatment of marriages. It also noted that by ordering that the marriage between a cisgender man and a transgender woman be recognized, the Court included transgender people in the legal conception of marriage, traditionally confined to unions including two cisgender persons.^[4]

Related Research Articles

The legal status of transgender people varies greatly around the world. Some countries have enacted laws protecting the rights of transgender individuals, but others have criminalized their gender identity or expression. In many cases, transgender individuals face discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, and other areas of life.

The history of intersex surgery is intertwined with the development of the specialities of pediatric surgery, pediatric urology, and pediatric endocrinology, with our increasingly refined understanding of sexual differentiation, with the development of political advocacy groups united by a human qualified analysis, and in the last decade by doubts as to efficacy, and controversy over when and even whether some procedures should be performed.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people in India face legal and social challenges not experienced by non-LGBT people. There are no legal restrictions against gay sex or gay expression within India. Same-sex couples have some limited cohabitation rights, colloquially known as live-in relationships. However, India does not currently provide for common law marriages, same-sex marriage, civil unions, guardianship or issue partnership certificates.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in Tamil Nadu are the most progressive among all states of India. Tamil Nadu was the first state in India to introduce a transgender welfare policy, wherein transgender individuals can access free gender affirmation surgery in government hospitals and various other benefits and rights. The state was also the first to ban forced sex-selective surgeries on intersex infants, and also the first state to include an amendment in its state police guidelines that expects officers to abstain from harassing the LGBTQIA+ community and its members. The state also became the first to ban conversion therapy as well as the first to introduce LGBTQIA+ issues in school curricula.

Chennai has LGBTQIA cultures that are diverse concerning- socio-economic class, gender, and degree of visibility and politicisation. They have historically existed in the margins and surfaced primarily in contexts such as transgender activism and HIV prevention initiatives for men having sex with men (MSM) and trans women (TG).

Intersex people are born with sex characteristics, such as chromosomes, gonads, or genitals, that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies."

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Kerala face legal and social difficulties not experienced by non-LGBT persons. However, Kerala has been at the forefront of LGBT issues in India after Tamil Nadu. It became one of the first states in India to establish a welfare policy for the transgender community and in 2016, proposed implementing free gender affirmation surgery through government hospitals. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 2018, following the Supreme Court ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. In addition, numerous LGBT-related events have been held across Kerala, including in Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram. However, there is also increasing opposition to LGBT rights recently as evidenced by the anti-LGBT campaigns spearheaded by meninist groups and Muslim organisations like Indian Union Muslim League, Samastha and Jamaat-e-Islami.

The following is a timeline of intersex history.

Intersex rights in New Zealand are protections and rights afforded to intersex people. Protection from discrimination is implied by the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights Act, but remains untested. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission states that there has seemingly been a "lack of political will to address issues involved in current practices of genital normalisation on intersex children".

Intersex people in the United States have some of the same rights as other people, but with significant gaps, particularly in protection from non-consensual cosmetic medical interventions and violence, and protection from discrimination. Actions by intersex civil society organizations aim to eliminate harmful practices, promote social acceptance, and equality. In recent years, intersex activists have also secured some forms of legal recognition. Since April 11, 2022 US Passports give the sex/gender options of male, female and X by self determination.

In 1999, the Constitutional Court of Colombia became the first court to consider the human rights implications of medical interventions to alter the sex characteristics of intersex children. The Court restricted the age at which intersex children could be the subjects of surgical interventions.

Gopi Shankar Madurai is an Indian equal rights and Indigenous rights activist. Shankar was one of the youngest, and the first openly intersex and genderqueer statutory authority and one of the candidates to contest in 2016 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election. Shankar is also the founder of Srishti Madurai Student Volunteer Collective. Shankar's work inspired the Madras High Court to direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to order a ban on forced sex-selective surgeries on intersex infants. In December 2017, Shankar was elected to the executive board of ILGA Asia. In August 2020, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment appointed Shankar as the South Regional representative in the National Council for Transgender Persons.

Tamil sexual minorities are Tamil people who do not conform to heterosexual gender norms. They may identify as LGBTQIA. It has been estimated that India has a population of 2.5 million homosexuals, though not all of them are Tamil, and not all Tamils live in India.

The following list is a partially completed compilation of events considered to have a profound effect on the welfare or image of Tamil sexual minorities. The use of bold typeface indicates that the event is widely considered to be landmark:

Srishti Madurai was established on 2 September 2011 by Gopi Shankar Madurai as the first genderqueer and LGBT student volunteer group designed to address the problems of LGBT people in the non-metro cities of Tamil Nadu. In October 2011 Srishti Madurai launched India's first helpline for intersex, genderqueer, and LGBT people at Madurai. In June 2013 the helpline turned to offer service for 24 hours with a tagline "Just having someone understanding to talk to can save a life". Srishti Madurai also organized Asia's first Genderqueer Pride Parade at Madurai.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2019.

This is a list of notable events in LGBT rights that took place in the 2010s.

Intersex people in Canada have no recognition of their rights to physical integrity and bodily autonomy, and no specific protections from discrimination on the basis of sex characteristics. Academic advocates including Janik Bastien-Charlebois and Morgan Holmes, and organizations including Egale Canada and the Canadian Bar Association have called for reform.

G. R. Swaminathan is an Indian judge of the Madras High Court.

Chanchal Bhattacharya versus State of West Bengal &Ors. (2015), a decision of the Calcutta High Court, asserts that individuals who have undergone gender-affirming surgery have a constitutional right to the recognition of their affirmed gender. The verdict emphasized the importance for educational and administrative institutions to adjust their records to reflect such changes, aiming to prevent inconvenience or discrimination.

References

1 2 3 "Arunkumar & other vs. The Inspector General of Registration & others". South Asian Translaw Database. Bangalore, India: Centre for Law and Policy Research. Retrieved 2022-10-02.
1 2 "Tamil Nadu Government Order Banning Surgeries on Intersex Infants (2019)". South Asian Translaw Database. Retrieved 2023-09-15.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Arun kumar &Anr. versus Inspector General of Registration &Ors., W. P. (MD) No. 4125 of 2019 ( Madurai Bench of Madras High Court 22 April 2019).
1 2 Supreme Court of India (26 November 2022), Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community (PDF), Supreme Court of India, p. 25, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2023
↑ "Article 39: Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State". Constitution of India. 26 January 1950. Archived from the original on 16 September 2023.
1 2 Government Order (Manuscript) 355 (PDF). Department of Health and Family Welfare, State Government of Tamil Nadu. 13 August 2019.
↑ "Tamil Nadu is the first in Asia and second in the world after Malta to legally ban sex selective surgeries on intersex infants and children. While the order is historic, it doesn't clarify the medical conditions that can be exempted from surgery". The Times of India. 2019-09-12. ISSN 0971-8257 . Retrieved 2023-09-16.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:1-1] 1 2 3 "Arunkumar & other vs. The Inspector General of Registration & others". South Asian Translaw Database. Bangalore, India: Centre for Law and Policy Research. Retrieved 2022-10-02.

[:2-2] 1 2 "Tamil Nadu Government Order Banning Surgeries on Intersex Infants (2019)". South Asian Translaw Database. Retrieved 2023-09-15.

[:0-3] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Arun kumar &Anr. versus Inspector General of Registration &Ors., W. P. (MD) No. 4125 of 2019 ( Madurai Bench of Madras High Court 22 April 2019).

[:02-4] 1 2 Supreme Court of India (26 November 2022), Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community (PDF), Supreme Court of India, p. 25, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2023

[5] "Article 39: Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State". Constitution of India. 26 January 1950. Archived from the original on 16 September 2023.

[:3-6] 1 2 Government Order (Manuscript) 355 (PDF). Department of Health and Family Welfare, State Government of Tamil Nadu. 13 August 2019.

[7] "Tamil Nadu is the first in Asia and second in the world after Malta to legally ban sex selective surgeries on intersex infants and children. While the order is historic, it doesn't clarify the medical conditions that can be exempted from surgery". The Times of India. 2019-09-12. ISSN 0971-8257 . Retrieved 2023-09-16.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]