The Madras High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed challenging Entry 39 of Table 3 of the Passport Rules, 1980 and Entry 7 under Section E of Table 2 of the Passport Rules, 1980 with regard to the production of documents.
B.Poongkhulali , the counsel for the petitioner submits that the main grievance of the petitioner is that if a male changes the gender to female and vice versa, then the respondents insist on Sex Reassignment Survery Certificate. Form-4 does not require production of Sex Reassignment Surgery Certificate.
As far as Transgenders are concerned, the respondents have changed the Policy and they do not insist for such a certificate.
On the last date, the Bench had asked the Standing Counsel for Central Government to take instructions as to whether the respondents would be willing to accept Form-4 for the purpose of change of gender from male to female or vice versa.
On April 29 , the Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that, for change of sex in passports, the policy adopted for Transgenders would be applicable also to the persons who changed their gender from male to female or vice versa.
The Standing Counsel for the Central Government as such states that, even for change of gender from female to male or vice versa, the production of Sex Reassignment Surgery Certificate would not be necessary under the Passport Rules.
In view of the above, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.
Therefore the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad disposed of the Petition.