Chanchal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal

Chanchal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal
Chanchal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal
Court	Calcutta High Court
Full case name	Chanchal Bhattacharyya versus State of West Bengal &Ors.
Decided	28 January 2016
Citation(s)	W.P. No. 30295 of 2015
Court membership
Judge sitting	Dipankar Datta, J.
Case opinions
	Individuals who have undergone Gender-affirming surgery (referred to as sex reassignment surgery in the case) have a constitutional right to the recognition of their affirmed gender.; Educational and administrative institutions should adjust their records to reflect such changes, aiming to prevent inconvenience or discrimination.;
Decision by	Dipankar Datta J.
Keywords
	Transgender Rights, Legal Recognition of Transgender People, Gender-affirming Surgery

Last updated May 06, 2024

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 (referred to as sex reassignment surgery in the case) 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.^[1]^[2]

The Supreme Court of India acknowledged this 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.^[3]

Background

The individual named 'Tamal,' who was assigned female at birth and originally named 'Tamali,' was born on October 28, 1991, to the petitioner and his spouse. Tamal attended United Missionary Girls’ High School in Kolkata, passing the Madhyamik Pariksha in 2007 and the Higher Secondary Examination in 2009, both conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education, respectively.^[2]

Tamal exhibited behaviors that differed from their assigned gender from an early age and eventually came to identify as male. Due to his gender incongruence (referred to as gender identity disorder in the case), Tamal consulted multiple healthcare professionals and underwent gender-affirming surgery (referred to as sex reassignment surgery in the case) in February 2014, successfully transitioning to male and adopting the name 'Tamal.' An affidavit confirming this change was sworn before a Judicial Magistrate.^[1]^[2]

The petitioner sought to update Tamal's name and gender on their school records, including admit cards, registration certificates, and mark sheets issued by the Board and the Council. The President of the Council did not take any action, while the Administrator of the Board rejected the request on October 13, 2015. The Administrator's decision referred to National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) to justify the rejection, indicating that Tamal's status should align with the concept of "Third Gender."^[1]^[2]

Tamal's father, the petitioner challenged the decision of the Board in the Calcutta High Court.^[1]^[2]

Proceedings

The petitioner's counsel invoked the Supreme Court's decision in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) and the judgments of the Madras High Court in S Swapna v. State of Tamil Nadu (2014) and K Prithika Yashini v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015), contending that the Administrator of the Board made an error in rejecting the petitioner's request.^[1]^[2]

The counsel representing the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education contested the petitioner's request for corrections, asserting that there was no legal obligation for such amendments due to the absence of a statutory requirement. He contended that providing a new certificate could potentially lead to questions about how a male individual completed education at a girls' school.^[1]^[2]

The Bench sought input from the State Government of West Bengal to aid in issuing an appropriate order. The counsel, representing the State Government of West Bengal, acknowledged that there was no specific statutory provision empowering the Administrator of the Board or the President of the Council to effect the requested changes. However, he noted that guidance could be drawn from the discussions within the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) case and argued that individuals have a constitutional right to the recognition of their affirmed gender following Gender-affirming surgery.^[2]

Opinion of the Court

The Bench noted that the decisions of the Madras High Court, which the petitioner's counsel relied upon, were not pertinent to the present case, as these decisions addressed non-surgical transgender individuals, whereas the case at hand involves individuals who have undergone gender-affirming surgery.^[2]

The Bench reviewed the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) case and acknowledged that the verdict did not explicitly address the recognition of affirmed gender after gender-affirming surgery. The Bench acknowledged that while the observations made in the case were not directly binding, they served as a foundation for upholding the constitutional right to acknowledge affirmed gender following surgery. Furthermore, the Bench relied on the observations made in the case that the lack of a statutory regime should not hinder the recognition of gender identity and criticized the Administrator of the Board's reasons for rejecting the petitioner's request.^[2]

However, the Bench acknowledged the potential challenges Tamal might face due to the name and gender change on his certificates, which could arise from his previous education in a girls' school, the Bench found that substituting Tamali's name and changing the sex marker on the certificates could cause more harm than good.^[2]

The Bench noted that there was no dispute that Tamal and Tamali were the same individual. The Bench overturned the decision made by the Administrator of the Board and instructed that suitable endorsements indicating the recognition of Tamal and Tamali as the same individual, post gender-affirming surgery, should be added to the certificates within a span of four weeks following the receipt of the judgment.^[1]^[2]

Legal Analysis

Dr Surabhi Shukla critiqued the Chanchal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal case for linking name and gender changes solely to gender-affirming surgery. She emphasized the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) case's directives and argued against any reliance on gender-affirming surgery as both unlawful and ethically questionable. Instead, Shukla advocated the court's reference to the self-determination principle established in the National Legal Services Authority case.^[4]

Dr. Surabhi Shukla offered a different perspective, suggesting that the court should have acknowledged Tamal's identification with a different gender than the one on record. Citing the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) case, which affirms the right of transgender individuals to self-identify, Dr. Surabhi Shukla proposed that the court should have recognized that doctor's certificates provided by Tamal aren't a prerequisite for declaring gender identity. Tamal's self-identified gender should be accepted, and the court should have ordered a corresponding change in his records.^[4]

While the Supreme Court of India recognized this case in its publication "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community" as a key instance of a High Court addressing systemic challenges faced by queer individuals within the justice system, it's worth noting that the publication mainly discusses the Bench's observation that the administrator made an error by denying the petitioner's request and the directive to change name and gender on various documents.^[3]

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.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in India have expanded in the 21st century, though much of India's advancements on LGBT rights have come from the judiciary and not the legislature. Indian LGBT citizens still face social and legal difficulties not experienced by non-LGBT people.

In the United States, the rights of transgender people vary considerably by jurisdiction. In recent decades, there has been an expansion of federal, state, and local laws and rulings to protect transgender Americans; however, many rights remain unprotected, and some rights are being eroded. Since 2020, there has been a national movement by conservative/right-wing politicians and organizations to target transgender rights. There has been a steady increase in the number of anti-transgender bills introduced each year, especially in Republican-led states.

India does not recognise same-sex marriage, civil unions or other forms of partnerships, but provides some limited legal recognition to cohabiting same-sex couples in the form of live-in relationships. Several same-sex couples have married in traditional Hindu ceremonies since the late 1980s; however, these marriages are not registered with the state and couples do not enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married opposite-sex couples. The Supreme Court of India in August 2022 provided social security rights to those in same-sex live-in relationships while also recognising same-sex couples as being part of a "family unit".

Appling v. Walker was a state court lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Wisconsin's domestic partnership registry. The action began as a petition for original action before the Wisconsin Supreme Court asking the Court for a declaration that the registry is unconstitutional and for a permanent injunction against the registry, which began registering couples on August 3, 2009. On November 4, 2009, the Court declined to take the case. Petitioners then refiled in state circuit court and the court ruled in June 2011 that the registry is constitutional. That decision was affirmed by a state appeals court in December 2012, and by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in July 2014.

W v Registrar of Marriages [2013] HKCFA 39; FACV 4/2012 is a landmark court case for LGBT rights in Hong Kong. In a 4:1 decision, the Court of Final Appeal gave transgender people the right to marry as their affirmed gender rather than their assigned gender at birth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan</span> Indian judge (born 1949)

K. S. Radhakrishna Panicker is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Prior to that, he served as the Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court and Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court.

National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India(2014) is a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India, which declared transgender people the 'third gender', affirmed that the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution of India will be equally applicable to them, and gave them the right to self-identification of their gender as male, female or third gender.

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.

S Sushma &Anr. versus Commissioner of Police&Ors.(2021) is a landmark decision of the Madras High Court that prohibited practice of "conversion therapy" by medical professionals in India. The court directed comprehensive measures to sensitize the society and various branches of the Union and State governments to remove prejudices against the queer community.

Sultana Mirza &Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh &Ors. (2020), a decision of the Allahabad High Court, established that the Constitutional Court bears the responsibility of overseeing and upholding both constitutional morality and the rights of citizens, particularly when these rights are endangered solely due to their sexual orientation.

Legal gender, or legal sex, is a sex or gender that is recognized under the law. Biological sex, sex reassignment and gender identity are used to determine legal gender. The details vary by jurisdiction. Legal gender identity is fundamental to many legal rights and obligations, including access to healthcare, work, and family relationships, as well as issues of personal identification and documentation. The complexities involved in determining legal gender, despite the seeming simplicity of the underlying principles, highlight the dynamic interaction between biological characteristics, self-identified gender identity, societal norms, and changing legal standards. Because of this, the study of legal gender is a complex field that is influenced by cultural, historical, and legal factors. As such, a thorough investigation is necessary to fully understand the subject's implications and breadth within a range of legal systems and societies.

Rohit Sagar &Anr. versus State of Uttarakhand &Ors.(2021), a decision of the Uttarakhand High Court, established the right of legal adults to select their own partners and instructed the police to ensure the couple's safety and safeguard their property.

Chinmayee Jena versus State of Odisha &Ors.(2020) is case where the Orissa High Court upheld the right of self-determination of gender as an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression. The court recognized the rights of trans persons to cohabit with the partner of their choice, regardless of the “gender” of the partner.

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 for intersex infants and children except on life-threatening situations.

Adhila Nasarin versus State Commissioner of Police &Ors.(2022) is case where Kerala High Court held that the adults in mutually consenting relationship should be allowed to live their lives according to their informed choice, regardless of gender.

Sreeja S versus Commissioner of Police &Ors.(2018) is case where Kerala High Court held that separating the adults in a consensual relationship is a violation of the Constitutional right, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Ujjawal &Anr. versus State of Haryana&Ors.(2021), a case where Punjab and Haryana High Court, refused to provide police protection to a couple facing threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society."

Queerala &Anr. versus State of Kerala&Ors. (2020) is an ongoing case of the Kerala High Court, where the Bench has directed the State Government of Kerala to implement stringent measures against involuntary conversion therapy and formulate guidelines pertaining to conversion therapy based on an expert committee's study that incorporates insights from queer community-based organizations and relevant stakeholders.

Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli &Ors. versus State of Telangana &Ors. (2023), a landmark decision of Telangana High Court, invalidating the Telangana Eunuchs Act of 1329 Fasli which categorized intersex, non-binary gender, and transgender individuals as susceptible to criminal actions, as it was found to be in violation of the constitution.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Chanchal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal". South Asian Translaw Database. Bangalore, India: Centre for Law and Policy Research. Retrieved 2023-08-18.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Chanchal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal, Writ Petition No. 30295 of 2015 ( Calcutta High Court 28 January 2016).
1 2 Supreme Court of India (26 November 2022), Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community (PDF), Supreme Court of India, p. 67, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2023
1 2 Shukla, Surabhi (2020). "Transgender Persons in Indian Courtrooms". In Davy, Zowie; Santos, Ana Cristina; Bertone, Chiara; Thoreson, Ryan Richard; Wieringa, Saskia (eds.). The Sage Handbook of Global Sexualities. Sage reference. SAGE. pp. 705–728. ISBN 9781526424129.

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 4 5 6 7 "Chanchal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal". South Asian Translaw Database. Bangalore, India: Centre for Law and Policy Research. Retrieved 2023-08-18.

[:2-2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Chanchal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal, Writ Petition No. 30295 of 2015 ( Calcutta High Court 28 January 2016).

[:0-3] 1 2 Supreme Court of India (26 November 2022), Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community (PDF), Supreme Court of India, p. 67, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2023

[:3-4] 1 2 Shukla, Surabhi (2020). "Transgender Persons in Indian Courtrooms". In Davy, Zowie; Santos, Ana Cristina; Bertone, Chiara; Thoreson, Ryan Richard; Wieringa, Saskia (eds.). The Sage Handbook of Global Sexualities. Sage reference. SAGE. pp. 705–728. ISBN 9781526424129.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]