_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Arun Kumar V. Inspector General of Registration
Case Citation - (2019) WP (MD) No. 4125
Relevant Acts and Sections -
Parties Involved -
Petitioner 1: Arun Kumar
Petitioner 2: Srija
Respondent: Inspector General of Registration
Name of the Judge - Mr. Justice G.R.Swaminathan
Facts of the case
Arun Kumar (the first petitioner) married Ms. Srija (the second petitioner) on October 31, 2018, at Arulmighu Sankara Rameswara Temple in Tuticorin, following the Hindu rites and rituals. Arun Kumar was a cisgender male, whereas Srija was born with an intersex condition. She was assigned the gender "female" at the time of birth, but she was registered as "male" at school. She had a male name, but she was identified as transgender in her Aadhar card. Socially, Srija was perceived as male, but according to her birth certificate, she was assigned the gender "female." Thus, when she adopts a female name and marries a male, the issue of the validity of transgender marriages becomes apparent.
The village administrative officer had certified that the marriage did take place and it wasn't a bigamous marriage. Although the temple authorities allowed the marriage to be solemnized, they declined to vouch for it. Mr. Arun and Ms. Srija were required to register their marriage as per "Rule 5(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriage Rules, 2009." However, when they approached the Joint Registrar, he refused to register their marriage. The couple also met the same refusal when they approached the Registrar of the district. Thus, they filed a writ of mandamus in the Madras High Court to challenge the decision of the Registrar.
Issue of the case
Whether the term "bride," as mentioned in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, meant only women or included transgender women too?
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioners contended that the gender identity of every individual lies at the core of a person's identity and gender expression. Hence, it will have to be protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
One's gender identity comes under the scope of a person's autonomy and dignity. Hence, it will have to be protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
One's right to marry cannot be restricted by the authorities. They have violated Article 14 (Right to Equality before law) of the Indian Constitution.
Respondent's Arguments.
The respondent contended that Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009 gives power to the Registrar of Marriages to refuse the registration of any marriage if he is satisfied that the marriage between the parties was not performed as per the personal laws of the parties.
The term "Bride" can only be given to a "woman on her wedding day," but Srija is a transgender. Thus, the requirement of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has not been fulfilled.
The temple authorities refused to provide any certificate to indicate that the marriage took place on their premises.
Judgment of the Case
The Hon'ble Justice G.R. Swaminathan held that a marriage solemnized between a cisgender male and transgender was a valid marriage. The Court upheld the decision of NALSA v. Union of India, where it was said that transgender people had the right to decide their gender. This ruling also held that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which gives the right to equality to everyone, will include transgender people too. The Hon'ble Court reiterated the decision of NALSA v. Union of India, where it was mentioned that transgender people would fall under the ambit of "person" and, therefore, would enjoy legal protection in all spheres of State as experienced by every other Indian citizen. This also signified that any discrimination that will be made on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation would be a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The Court also held that the gender identity of any individual lies at the core of one's identity, gender expression, and presentation, which means that it should be protected under Article 19(1)(a). Moreover, the recognition of an individual's gender identity is also related to the fundamental right to dignity, which has been recognized as a part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution in the case of Justice K. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. In NALSA v. Union of India, the Supreme Court stated that self-identification of gender is an integral part of personal autonomy, and self-expression falls within the ambit of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
According to the aforementioned reasons, the Hon'ble Madras High Court observed that Srija's choice to express her gender identity falls within the scope of her personal autonomy, and therefore, it cannot be questioned by the State Authorities. The Hon'ble High Court also stated that the term "bride" mentioned in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot have a static meaning. It must be interpreted according to the modern legal system. The Court also cited the Judgement of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. and Ors. where it was held that the right to marry a person of one's choice is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this fundamental right was taken away from the petitioners when they were stopped from marrying each other.
The Court further noted that both petitioners practice the Hindu religion, and their right to practice the religion freely is upheld by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Given that the right of transgender people has been guaranteed by the Supreme Court, they cannot be kept out of the purview of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, the interference of the authorities to stop the marriage of the petitioners was a violation of Article 25. This statement clarified that the term "bride" would include all the intersex/transgender people who identify themselves as women, with the only consideration being how they perceive themselves.
The Hon'ble Judge also addressed the issue of sex reassignment surgery (SRS) or Intersex Genital Mutilation (IGM) of intersex children. The Court held that the consent of a parent could not be considered as the consent of the child, and no one shall be forced to undergo medical procedures for legal recognition of their gender identity. The Government of Tamil Nadu was directed to issue a Government Order that banned SRS on intersex infants and children.
Thus, the Court held that refusal of the marriage of Ms. Srija resulted in a violation of her fundamental rights under Article 14, 19(1)(a), 21, and 25 of the Constitution of India and quashed the orders of the Joint Registrar No. II and District Registrar of Tuticorin and directed the Registrar to register the marriage of the Petitioners.
Similar Cases
References
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article "Does India Allow Trans People To Marry?" by clicking the link below.