Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 is a special legislation that overrides general administrative procedures and regulations, thereby mandating that education boards incorporate changes in the name and gender of transgender individuals in their official academic records.
Delivering judgment in Sharad Roshan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. on November 6, 2025, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery set aside the rejection order passed by the Regional Secretary of the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly, and directed the concerned authorities to update the petitioner’s educational certificates in accordance with the 2019 Act and the corresponding Rules, 2020.
The petitioner, a transgender man, had initially been issued a Certificate of Identity under Section 6 of the 2019 Act and, following gender-affirming surgery, obtained a revised certificate under Section 7 read with Rule 6 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020. When he sought corresponding corrections in his educational documents as provided under Rule 5(3) of the Rules, his application was declined on the ground that no procedure existed for late-stage rectifications.
Rejecting this reasoning, the Court observed:
“The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, being a special enactment, must receive precedence over any administrative circular or regulation. The refusal of the education authority to apply the provisions of the Act amounts to a clear legal error.”
The Court held that Section 20 of the Act expressly provides that its provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law, reinforcing its overriding effect. It also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India (2025 INSC 1248), which emphasized the duty of the State to implement the Act and Rules effectively to ensure full realization of the constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
Referring to Dr. Beoncy Laishram v. State of Manipur (2025 SCC OnLine Mani 430), K. Prithika Yashini v. TNUSRB (2015 SCC OnLine Mad 11834), and Vedant Maurya alias Kumari Soni v. State of U.P. (2024:AHC-LKO:69459), the Court noted that High Courts across jurisdictions have consistently directed compliance with the 2019 Act to safeguard the rights of transgender persons in matters of official documentation.
Setting aside the impugned order dated April 8, 2025, the Court directed the education board to carry out necessary amendments in the petitioner’s name and gender across all educational records and issue fresh mark sheets and certificates within eight weeks.
“Recognition of gender identity in educational and public documents is not a concession but a matter of statutory entitlement and constitutional necessity. Authorities are duty-bound to ensure full implementation of the Act and Rules.”
Appearances:
For the Petitioner – Mr. H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Akshay Kumar Srivastava, Mrs. Chitrangada Narain, and Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma.
For the State – Mr. Amit Saxena, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, Standing Counsel.
Case Title: Sharad Roshan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Date of Judgment: November 6, 2025
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
