The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed an individual's constitutional right to undergo gender transition via surgical procedures. In a recent judgment, the court instructed the state's Director General of Police (DGP) to make a decision on the application, in accordance with the law, submitted by a female constable who is seeking permission for sex reassignment surgery (SRS).

The court also stated, “The authority may request the submission of relevant materials and documents to assess whether the application warrants genuine consideration. Such a request must be supported by cogent material.”

Additionally, the court instructed the state government's counsel to furnish information regarding the implementation of guidelines in line with the Supreme Court's 2014 decision. The Supreme Court's directive primarily aimed at ensuring access to medical care for transgender individuals within hospitals, providing separate public facilities, and initiating social welfare programs for their improvement and well-being.

The single-headed bench of Justice Ajit Kumar's remarks during the hearing of a writ petition filed by an unmarried female constable in the U.P. Police. The petitioner stated that she was experiencing Gender Dysphoria and expressed her wish to undergo Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) to bring her physical appearance in line with her genuine male identity.

The petitioner’s legal representative said, “The petitioner submitted the request for SRS authorisation on March 11, 2023, to the Director General of Police in Lucknow, U.P. However, no decision has been reached in this regard, leading to the filing of this petition.”

The petitioner’s counsel primarily referenced the Supreme Court’s case of National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India and others to argue against withholding the petitioner’s application.

In that pivotal case, the Supreme Court had officially recognized transgender individuals as the 'third gender' and granted them the right to self-identify as male, female, or third gender. This decision was based on the 2014 ruling, which established that gender identity is a fundamental component of an individual's dignity, thereby obliging the concerned authorities to address the petitioner's case.

The bench noted, “There should be no doubt that a person experiencing gender dysphoria, whose emotional and psychological attributes align with the traits of the opposite sex, possesses a constitutionally acknowledged right to undergo surgical gender change.”

“Failing to acknowledge this inherent right would perpetuate gender identity disorder syndrome within our modern society. In certain cases, this syndrome can have severe consequences, including anxiety, depression, negative self-perception, and discomfort with one’s own sexual anatomy. When psychological interventions prove ineffective in alleviating such distress, surgical gender transition should be deemed necessary and actively encouraged,” added the bench.