0

Surbhi Trivedi v. Gaurav Trivedi Misc. Petition No. 4820 of 2018

The practical limits of the gender determination aspect of the NALSA decision were tested on the 4th of October, 2019 when a single judge bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered a gender determination test in a matrimonial dispute. In this blog, I will summarize the facts and the decision, and demonstrate that: 1. There is still confusion about the definition of transgender, and intersex persons are considered to be transgender; and 2. That this decision provides a legal limitation to the fundamental right to self-determined gender identity.

Continue reading

1

X v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 28 of 2019

On the 31st of May, 2019, a single judge bench of the Uttarakhand High Court decided whether a trans-woman’s allegation of rape should be recorded under Section 375 or Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’)? In deciding that the trans-woman had a right to self-determine her gender, ‘without further confirmation from any authority’, this case is a rare example of the correct application of the NALSA decision. It breaks from the trend observed in the Indian courts posts NALSA that when a person seeks to identify in a gender different from what the society has perceived her to be, the courts rely on a sex re-assignment surgery (and in one case, a psychological exam) to grant that right.

Continue reading

1

Tessy James v. The Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram and Ors. W.P. Crl. No. 215/2018

On the 12th of June, 2018, a division bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the fundamental right of a transgender person to speech and expression, and free movement.[1] However, arguably, it did so after psychologically evaluating whether the transgender person was really transgender. In this blog, I will argue that: 1. The NALSA[2] judgment provided for the self-identification of gender identity regardless of sex-reassignment surgery and psychological evaluation, and 2. This judgment’s reliance on psychological tests for the accepting the gender identity of the transgender person violated NALSA, and consequently, the law of the land on this subject.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The writ was filed by the mother of Abby James (who now identified as Arundhati) alleging that Arundhati was being held by some transgender persons. The writ prayed that she be set at liberty. According to her mother, Arundhati had previously been diagnosed with mood disorder and psychotic features and had received treatment at a hospital. The present fact situation that brought her before the court was that Arundhati had left the parental home on the 9th of May, 2018 and had not returned. She also showed no indication of returning. She had begun to dress as a woman and kept company with some transgender persons. Her mother was concerned about her physical safety as she feared Arundhati was exposing herself to the risk of “physical abuse and organ transplant.” Additionally, she also could not bear the sight of her son dressed “in the robes of a woman.” Arundhati appeared before the High Court and asserted her gender identity as transgender and also stated that she was not mentally unfit. However, given her past psychiatric history, her mother prayed that the court order a medical evaluation of her mental condition. The court so ordered and the medical report found that Arundhati was mentally competent and had no mood disorder or hallucinations etc. Accordingly, the court ordered that Arundhati was free to identify as transgender and keep what company she wanted. The pleas of the mother to have her returned to the parental home away from the transgender community were trumped by Arundhati’s fundamental right[3] to “live as a transgender.” [para 6].

  1. THE NALSA CASE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM

The NALSA case found that all fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian constitution extend to transgender persons as well. It was clear from the directions passed by the Supreme Court in this case that sex re-assignment surgery cannot be made a pre-requisite for identifying as transgender. The court stated, “any insistence for SRS for declaring one’s gender is immoral and illegal.” [Direction 5, NALSA].

However, the scope of psychological exam for declaring one’s gender identity is purportedly uncertain in this judgment. I have argued before that NALSA does not require such an exam. The whole thrust of the judgment is on self-identification and any mention of psychology in it is in reference to the psyche of the person, or the internal, deeply felt gender identity which does not require a doctor’s agreement. In the interest of fullness, I produce that argument below. It first featured in the K. Gowtham Subramaniyam blogpost in December, 2017.

The requirement of doctors, both medical and psychological, is without basis in the NALSA judgment. NALSA relies on self- determination rendering a medical or psychological opinion on whether a person really is transgender, unnecessary. While NALSA’s reliance on the phrase “psychological test” may lead some to believe that transgender persons can be made to undergo a psychological exam to corroborate the fact of their gender identity, the judgment, if read in full, arguably uses the phrase “psychological test” to refer to the internal self- belief of a person, a belief in the realm of the psyche, and not an actual psychological test understood in clinical terms. See especially, Justice Radhakrishnan’s explicit statement that, “[d]etermination of gender to which a person belongs is to be decided by the person concerned.” [Page 84]. His mention of the psychological test must be read in light of this statement. Moreover, the judgment never identifies the role of a psychologist or psychiatrist while upholding the right to self- determined gender. The only instance of the usage of the word psychiatrist in the judgment is by Justice Sikri when he is describing what sex re-assignment surgery entails. He also arguably does not identify the role of a psychiatrist or a psychologist in gender identity because he bases his judgment on the fundamental principle of an individual’s “right to choose” [page 91]. Finally, the Supreme Court’s direction 2 clearly states that a transgender person’s right to self identified gender is upheld, placing the obligation on the government to provide legal recognition in accordance. A psychological or psychiatrist exam would militate against very spirit of a self identified gender identity.

Before proceeding to the next segment, we might remind ourselves that as per Article 141 of the Indian constitution, “the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.” This means that the Kerala High Court was bound to follow the Supreme Court’s finding that a psychological exam was not a pre-requisite to identifying with a particular gender.

  1. THE PRESENT CASE AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION

In the present case, the High Court ordered a psychiatric evaluation of Arundhati. However, the circumstances in which this evaluation was ordered are vital here. Arundhati had previously been treated for mental illness. The court ruminated on the prayer by the mother to order a psychiatric evaluation. It considered whether it would be overreach for it to do so and whether its Parens Patriae jurisdiction [loosely, “in the place of a parent”] empowered it to do so. Relying on a recent exposition of this jurisdiction by the Supreme Court, the court found that Parens Patriae can be invoked in cases where a person suffers from mental incompetency. Finding that Arundhati had had a history of mental illness for which she had also received treatment, it felt empowered to order a psychiatric and psychological medical examination of her mental health. The court was cognizant of the fact that ordering such an exam may violate Arundhati’s right to live with dignity but went ahead and did that “only because it was alleged that he is a psychiatric patient.” [para 4].

Now, one may take a pause here. Up to this point, arguably, the court has not violated NALSA. It has ordered a mental health exam but for reasons different from assessing the truth of Arundhati’s claim. However, what follows next arguably reverses this course. It appears that the court had ordered a medical exam not only regarding the mental fitness of Arundhati but regarding her claim that she is transgender. This can be gathered from the fact that the medical exam not only finds that Arundhati suffers from no mental infirmity; it also concludes that she, in the words of the court, “fits the label ‘transgender’ as per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th Edition (2013).”[4] Moreover, the medical report diagnoses her for gender dysphoria and the court places reliance on this medical finding. Any doubt in this matter is dispelled by the following statement of the High Court”

“The self identification of the detenu as a transgender is clearly expressed by speech, mannerism, clothing etc. which we noticed during our interaction and [is] fortified by the medical report.” [para 6].

This statement strongly suggests that the court was relying not on the self-identification of Arundhati as transgender alone but also on medical report which found that she “fit” the criteria of transgender. In ordering that the scope of the mental evaluation exceed a finding of fitness and encapsulate a test as to whether Arundhati is actually transgender, the Kerala High Court violated NALSA which is the law of the land. It also reversed the trend of cases on self-identification of transgender persons by ordering a psychiatric evaluation. In the cases on gender identification which have come up after NALSA, courts have hitherto never ordered such a psychiatric evaluation. See the K. Gowtham Subramaniyam blogpost for a table of cases in which gender identity of transgender persons was the main issue, post NALSA. It could very well be that the reasons for not ordering such a test were circumstantial rather than conscious in those cases as in all but one[5] instance, the claimant had undergone sex re-assignment surgery and had a certificate from the doctor declaring transgender status. Notwithstanding, this judgment may have made some illegal and undesirable inroads into the hard won rights of the transgender population.

[1] The Constitution of India, 1950. See, specifically, Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(d).

[2] National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and Ors. W.P. (Civil) No. 400/2012.

[3] This fundamental right was recognized under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.

[4] Para 5.

[5] Shivani Bhat v. NCT of Delhi and Ors. W.P. (Crl.) No. 2133/2015. In this case, the judgment does not mention a sex re-assignment surgery or any transgender certificate.

5

K. Gowtham Subramaniyam v. Controller of Examination Anna University W.P. No. 7536/2017

On the 1st of June, 2017, a single judge bench of the Madras High Court directed Anna University to change the name and sex in the records of the petitioner, a transgender man. In this post, I will summarize the case with a focus on the different medical processes “on account of” which the court passed this direction. Additionally, I will seek to demonstrate that:

  1. In the reported cases post NALSA which require a determination of gender identity for the allocation of rights, courts have usually relied on sex re-assignment surgery (SRS)[1] and anatomical approximation post SRS, but not on psychological tests.
  2. Government departments in different states do not follow any uniform procedure though it is not unlikely that the department may ask for a SRS certificate.
  3. The Transgender (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016 [“2016 Bill”] has the potential to turn the NALSA self- determination principle on its head by empowering a District Magistrate and a screening committee to certify whether a person is transgender.
  1. MEDICAL PROCEDURES UNDERTAKEN IN THE PRESENT CASE

The petitioner, assigned gender female at birth, “always felt and lived like a man”, as the High Court put it. He underwent the following gender affirmative procedures:

  1. A gender identity disorder diagnosis
  2. Hormone replacement therapy
  3. Psychological testing and certification declaring petitioner fit for surgery
  4. SRS

He received a certificate from the doctors after the surgery attesting to the fact that the petitioner was transgender and had undergone SRS. After these procedures, the petitioner changed his name to K. Gowtham and issued a public notice to the effect by a publication in the in the Tamil Nadu Gazette. He also obtained an Aadhar card in his male name. Thereafter, he made a written representation to Anna University to change his name. The University, citing lack of provision or precedent to effect the change, required that the petitioner present a transgender certificate from the District Magistrate, per the proposed 2016 Bill.

The High Court found that “on account” of the SRS and the subsequent doctor certificates, the petitioner, “has become a complete male.” [para 2]. Accordingly, the High Court directed the university to change the name and sex on the records and certificates of the petitioner.

  1. THE COURT’S RELIANCE ON MEDICAL PROCEDURES IS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW

Not only does the High Court rely on the SRS and medical certificates, it also presumably relies on the anatomical correctness of the post-surgery sex organs when it declares that, “the petitioner has become a complete male.” This judgment doubly violates NALSA by: 1. Granting the prayer arguably only on terms ruled illegal by NALSA (the SRS); and 2. Going a step further to presumably see how successful the surgeries had been in replicating the male anatomy.

  1. THE COURT’S RELIANCE ON THE ANATOMICAL SUCCESS OF THE OPERATION IS INCORRECT IN LAW

Arguably, the court’s declaration that the petitioner had become a “complete man” per medical certificates weighed on its decision to declare that the petitioner’s records be changed. I have argued above that such reliance is illegal as per NALSA.

However, this decision needs to be seen in the light of another development as well. The procedure laid down by the 2016 Bill for the recognition of a person as transgender has the potential to become heavily medicalized, in contravention of the NALSA ruling. Whereas the thrust of the NALSA judgment was on self- determination, the proposed Bill empowers the District Magistrate (DM) to certify whether a person is transgender (Ss.4-8). Though the full procedure of how this shall be done has not been laid out in the Bill, the composition of the District Screening Committee on whose recommendations the DM will certify, may give us some indications. The committee shall comprise:

  1. A Chief Medical Officer;
  2. Social welfare officer;
  3. Psychologist or psychiatrist;
  4. Representative of transgender community;
  5. A government officer.

The requirement of doctors, both medical and psychological, is without any basis in the NALSA judgment. NALSA relies on self- determination rendering a medical or psychological opinion on whether a person really is transgender, unnecessary. While NALSA’s reliance on the phrase “psychological test” may lead some to believe that transgender persons can be made to undergo a psychological exam to corroborate the fact of their gender identity, the judgment, if read in full, arguably uses the phrase “psychological test” to refer to the internal self belief of a person, a belief in the realm of the psyche, and not an actual psychological test understood in clinical terms. Justice Radhakrishnan’s mention of a psychological test must be read in light of his explicit statement that, “Determination of gender to which a person belongs is to be decided by the person concerned.” [Page 84]. Moreover, the judgment never identifies the role of a psychologist or psychiatrist while upholding the right to self- determined gender. The only instance of the usage of the word psychiatrist in the judgment is by Justice Sikri when he is describing what SRS entails. He also arguably does not identify the role of a psychiatrist or a psychologist in gender identity because he bases his judgment on the fundamental principle of an individual’s “right to choose” [page 91]. Finally, the Supreme Court’s direction 2 clearly states that a transgender person’s right to self identified gender is upheld, placing the obligation on the government to provide legal recognition in accordance. A psychological or psychiatrist exam would militate against very spirit of a self identified gender identity. The reported judgments post NALSA seem to have understood this requirement correctly. Either deliberately or inadvertently, they have not required the results of a psychological exam before upholding the rights of a petitioner to self identity as transgender, even as they have required proof of SRS, and a “successful” SRS to grant these rights [See table 1].

TABLE 1

POST NALSA CASES IN WHICH THE DETERMINATION OF GENDER IDENTITY IS IN ISSUE

In this table, I have excluded cases in which the court incorrectly equated intersex with transgender and intersex claimants did not seek to identify in a gender different from that assigned at birth.  Additionally, I have excluded cases in which the determination of the transgender identity of the parties is not a legal issue.

 

Case Reliance on SRS Reliance on Anatomical Resemblance Reliance on Psychological Exam
Shivani Bhat

 

(Delhi HC)

No No No
Shivam Santosh Dewagan

 

(Chhattisgarh HC)

Yes Yes No
K. Gowtham

 

(Mad. HC)

Yes Yes No
Prithika Yashini

(Mad. HC)

Yes Arguably No but details of medical certificates examined are not reproduced in judgment. No
S. Swapna

(Mad. HC)

Yes Id. No

Additionally, it is not uncommon for government departments to ask for SRS, as reported online or shared on listservs. See table in this Doc. This table also demonstrates that it is unclear what additional documents transgender applicants need to produce in addition to the published procedure.

In the present case, the court did not pay heed to the university’s demand for a DM certificate because the 2016 Bill has not yet become law. However, the section, if passed, may cause the right of a transgender person to self identify to change hands and become the right of the DM to identify a transgender person. This section has faced stiff opposition from activists, lawyers and scholars working in the field. See, for example, this collection of critiques of the 2016 Bill. If the 2016 Bill passes in its current form, it is very likely that the principle of self-determination of gender identity will have little or no meaning; doctors of the body and mind will make these decisions in scenes that will remind us of Foucault’s Birth of the Clinic.

 

[1] A recent study has suggested that the term Gender Affirmative Surgery better signifies how transgender persons experience this surgery. However, for the present blog, I use the term SRS for reading consistency between court rulings and my critiques because the courts have been using SRS.

I am grateful to Dr. L. Ramakrishnan (Ramki) for extensive discussions around this blog and for pointing me to the collection of critiques of the 2016 Bill. Ramki is the Vice-President at SAATHII, a public health non- profit, and volunteers at Orinam, a volunteer collective with extensive internet resources on the queer movement in India.