Karnataka HC directs registrar to issue revised birth, death certificates for transgenders

Karnataka HC directs registrar to issue revised birth, death certificates for transgenders

The Karnataka High Court, on Friday, instructed the Registrar of Births and Deaths to issue modified certificates for transgender individuals who have undergone gender reassignment.

These certificates must reflect both the previous and revised names and genders of the individuals. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

As reported by PTI, these certificates must include both the previous and revised names and genders of the individuals, ensuring that their official documents reflect their identity.

This directive will remain in effect until the necessary amendments are made to the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which currently does not provide provisions for changing gender on original birth or death certificates.

The court also recommended that the Karnataka Law Commission and the state government review the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and propose necessary amendments to the 1969 Act and its Rules to align with the spirit of the 2019 Act, the report added.

Court's ruling follows petition

Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued these orders while resolving a petition filed by a 34-year-old transgender woman who had undergone gender reassignment surgery and sought to update her name and gender on her birth certificate. The Mangaluru City Corporation's Registrar of Births and Deaths had earlier denied her request, citing the lack of provisions in the 1969 Act.

The court acknowledged that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, provides for the updating of official documents, including birth certificates, based on a certificate issued by a competent authority following gender reassignment. However, it noted that the 1969 Act lacks provisions for revising original certificates to reflect such changes.

While the court recognised that the Registrar's decision to reject the petitioner's application was technically correct under the 1969 Act, it emphasised that the decision violated the rights guaranteed to transgender persons under the 2019 Act.

(With PTI inputs)