# Sharad Roshan Singh v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 923
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-06
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 35406 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sharad-roshan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52771
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
application
filed
by
a
transgender person for change of name in
educational documents in terms of Rule
5(3)
read
with
Annexure-1
of
the
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights)
Rules, 2020 could be rejected on the
ground that the relevant provisions and
Government Orders do not provide any
procedure for correction of name at a
belated stage, and whether the provisions
of the Transgender Persons (Protection of
Rights) Act, 2019 read with the Rules, 2020
were applicable.
HEADNOTE
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act,
2019, Sections 6, 7 and 20 - Transgender
Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, Rule
5(3) read with Annexure-1 and Rule 6 -
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Writ petition
by a transgender person - Subsequent surgery
to change gender - Application filed for change
of name in educational documents in terms of
Rule 5(3) - Application rejected by Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad on the ground that no
procedure exists for correction of name at a
belated stage and that provisions of Act, 2019
read with Rules, 2020 were not applicable -
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act,
2019 a Special Act - Section 20 provides that
provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and
not in derogation of any other law - Legal error
committed by not applying provisions of Act,
2019 - No dispute that petitioner was entitled to
file application to change gender, name and
photographs in all official documents including
educational certificates - Impugned order held
unsustainable in the eyes of law - Writ petition
allowed with directions. (E-5)
HELD:
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act,
2019 is a Special Act. Section 20 of the Act
provides that the provisions of the Act shall be
in addition to, and not in derogation of, any
other law for the time being in force.
Respondent committed a legal error by not
applying the provisions of the Act, 2019 in
favour of the petitioner. On the basis of record,
there is no dispute that the petitioner was
entitled to file application in terms of Rule 5(3)
of the Rules, 2020 read with Annexure-1 to
change gender, name and photographs in all
official
documents
including
educational
certificates. Impugned order set aside. Writ
petition allowed and the respondents directed to
act in accordance with law and issue fresh
educational mark sheets/certificates within eight
weeks. (Paras 5-6)

CASE LAW CITED
Jane Kaushik v. Union of India and others, 2025
INSC 1248;
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of
India and others, (2014) 5 SCC 438;
Dr. Beoncy Laishram v. State of Manipur and
others, 2025 SCC OnLine Mani 430;
924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
K. Prithika Yashini v. TNUSRB, 2015 SCC OnLine
Mad 11834;
Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration,
2019 SCC OnLine Mad 8779;
S. Swapna (Transgender) v. State of Tamil Nadu,
WP (MD) No. 10882 of 2014;
K. Gowtham Subramaniyam v. Controller of
Examination, WP No. 7536 of 2017;
Shri Vinod H.N. v. State of Karnataka, WP No.
54037 of 2017;
Poojitha B.P. v. Karnataka Secondary Education
Examination Board, WP No. 54037 of 2017;
Christina Lobo v. State of Karnataka, WP No.
8024 of 2020;
Jeeva v. State of Karnataka, WP No. 12113 of
2019;
X. v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 SCC OnLine Utt
652;
Vedant Maurya alias Kumari Soni v. State of U.P.
and others, 2024:AHC-LKO:69459.

List of Acts
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act,
2019;
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights)
Rules, 2020;
Constitution of India

List of Keyword
Transgender person - Change of name -
Educational documents - Certificate of Identity
- Section 6 - Section 7 - Rule 5(3) -
Annexure-1 - Special Act - Section 20 - Nonderogation
clause
-
Discrimination
-
Educational certificates - Writ of mandamus.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 08.04.2025 passed by Regional
Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly
rejecting application for change of name in
educational documents.

Appearanc

## Text

11 All. Sharad Roshan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
923
direction is further issued to the
Authority i.e. respondent nos.2 and 3 to
process the applications moved by the
petitioner for permission to mortgage dated
08.10.2024 and 02.01.2025 and decide the
same within a period of six weeks from the
date of production of certificate copy of
this order.

[27]
With
the
aforesaid
observations, the present writ petition
stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 923
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - C No. 35406 of 2025

Sharad Roshan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashwani Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
application
filed
by
a
transgender person for change of name in
educational documents in terms of Rule
5(3)
read
with
Annexure-1
of
the
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights)
Rules, 2020 could be rejected on the
ground that the relevant provisions and
Government Orders do not provide any
procedure for correction of name at a
belated stage, and whether the provisions
of the Transgender Persons (Protection of
Rights) Act, 2019 read with the Rules, 2020
were applicable.
HEADNOTE
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act,
2019, Sections 6, 7 and 20 - Transgender
Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, Rule
5(3) read with Annexure-1 and Rule 6 -
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Writ petition
by a transgender person - Subsequent surgery
to change gender - Application filed for change
of name in educational documents in terms of
Rule 5(3) - Application rejected by Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad on the ground that no
procedure exists for correction of name at a
belated stage and that provisions of Act, 2019
read with Rules, 2020 were not applicable -
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act,
2019 a Special Act - Section 20 provides that
provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and
not in derogation of any other law - Legal error
committed by not applying provisions of Act,
2019 - No dispute that petitioner was entitled to
file application to change gender, name and
photographs in all official documents including
educational certificates - Impugned order held
unsustainable in the eyes of law - Writ petition
allowed with directions. (E-5)
HELD:
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act,
2019 is a Special Act. Section 20 of the Act
provides that the provisions of the Act shall be
in addition to, and not in derogation of, any
other law for the time being in force.
Respondent committed a legal error by not
applying the provisions of the Act, 2019 in
favour of the petitioner. On the basis of record,
there is no dispute that the petitioner was
entitled to file application in terms of Rule 5(3)
of the Rules, 2020 read with Annexure-1 to
change gender, name and photographs in all
official
documents
including
educational
certificates. Impugned order set aside. Writ
petition allowed and the respondents directed to
act in accordance with law and issue fresh
educational mark sheets/certificates within eight
weeks. (Paras 5-6)

CASE LAW CITED
Jane Kaushik v. Union of India and others, 2025
INSC 1248;
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of
India and others, (2014) 5 SCC 438;
Dr. Beoncy Laishram v. State of Manipur and
others, 2025 SCC OnLine Mani 430;
924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
K. Prithika Yashini v. TNUSRB, 2015 SCC OnLine
Mad 11834;
Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration,
2019 SCC OnLine Mad 8779;
S. Swapna (Transgender) v. State of Tamil Nadu,
WP (MD) No. 10882 of 2014;
K. Gowtham Subramaniyam v. Controller of
Examination, WP No. 7536 of 2017;
Shri Vinod H.N. v. State of Karnataka, WP No.
54037 of 2017;
Poojitha B.P. v. Karnataka Secondary Education
Examination Board, WP No. 54037 of 2017;
Christina Lobo v. State of Karnataka, WP No.
8024 of 2020;
Jeeva v. State of Karnataka, WP No. 12113 of
2019;
X. v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 SCC OnLine Utt
652;
Vedant Maurya alias Kumari Soni v. State of U.P.
and others, 2024:AHC-LKO:69459.

List of Acts
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act,
2019;
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights)
Rules, 2020;
Constitution of India

List of Keyword
Transgender person - Change of name -
Educational documents - Certificate of Identity
- Section 6 - Section 7 - Rule 5(3) -
Annexure-1 - Special Act - Section 20 - Nonderogation
clause
-
Discrimination
-
Educational certificates - Writ of mandamus.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 08.04.2025 passed by Regional
Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly
rejecting application for change of name in
educational documents.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Petitioner: Ashwani Kumar Sharma
Adv. for Respondents: C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Petitioner before this Court is a
Transgender person, as recognized under
the provisions of Transgender Persons
(Protection
of
Rights)
Act,
2019
(hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2019")
read with Transgender Persons (Protection
of
Rights)
Rules,
2020
(hereinafter
referred to as "Rules, 2020").

2.
The
District
Magistrate
concerned in terms of Section 6 of Act,
2019 has issued a Certificate of Identity.
Subsequently, petitioner has undergone a
surgery to change gender (Female to Male)
and further in terms of Section 7 of Act,
2019 read with Rule 6 of Rules, 2020 a
Certificate
was
issued
by
District
Magistrate concerned in a prescribed
format.

3. It is further case of petitioner
that subsequently an application was filed
to
change
the name
in
educational
documents in terms of Rule 5(3) read with
its Annexure-1. However, by means of
impugned order dated 08.04.2025 passed
by
Regional
Secretary,
Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly, application of
petitioner
was
rejected
that
relevant
provisions and Government Order do not
provide any procedure for correction of
name in educational documents at a very
belated stage and provisions of Act, 2019
read with Rules, 2020 were held to be not
applicable.

4. Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Akshay Kumar
Srivastava, Advocate and Mrs. Chitrangada
Narain, Sri Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Akash
Kumar Sharma and Rajesh Kumar Yadav,
Advocates for petitioner and Sri Amit
Saxena,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar
Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for
State-Respondents,
have
made
their
respective submissions. Learned counsel
for parties have also placed various
11 All. Sharad Roshan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
925
judgments passed by Supreme Court as
well as High Courts of other States in Jane
Kaushik vs. Union of India and others,
2025 INSC 1248; National Legal Services
Authority vs. Union of India and others
(2014)5 SCC 438; Dr. Beoncy Laishram
vs. State of Manipur and others, 2025
SCC OnLine Mani 430; K. Prithika
Yashini vs. TNUSRB, 2015 SCC OnLine
Mad 11834; Arun Kumar vs. Inspector
General of Registration, 2019 SCC
OnLine
Mad
8779;
S.
Swapna
(Transgender) vs. The State of Tamil
Nadu (WP (MD) No. 10882 of 2014); K.
Gowtham
Subramaniyam
vs.
The
Controller of Examination (WP No. 7536
of 2017); Shri Vinod H.N. vs. State of
Karnataka (WP No. 54037 of 2017);
Poojitha B.P. vs. Karnataka Secondary
Education
Examination
Board
and
others
(WP
No.
54037
of
2017);
Christina Lobo vs. State of Karnataka
(WP No. 8024 of 2020); Jeeva vs. State of
Karnataka (WP No. 12113 of 2019); X.
vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 SCC
OnLine Utt 652; and, Vedant Maurya
alias Kumari Soni vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2024:AHC-LKO:69459.

5.
After
going
through
the
aforesaid judgments and perusal of records
as well as after considering the submissions
of learned counsel for parties, the Court is
of the opinion that impugned order cannot
sustain in the eyes of law and the reasons
for such conclusion are as follows:

 (I)
Transgender
Persons
(Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 is a
Special Act.
 (II) Section 20 of Act, 2019
provisions that provisions of this Act shall
be in addition to, and not in derogation of,
any other law for the time being in force.
Therefore,
concerned
respondent
has
committed a legal error by not applying
provisions of Act, 2019 in favour of
petitioner.

 (III) On basis of record, there is
no dispute that petitioner was entitled to
file application in terms of Rule 5(3) of
Rules, 2019 read with its Annexure-1 to
change gender, name and photographs in
all official documents provided in its
annexure
which
also
include
any
educational certificate issued by a School,
Board, College, University or any such
academic Institution [Serial No. 1 to
Annexure-1 of Rule 5(3)] .

 (IV) The respondents-State have
not brought on record any other judgment
which could contradict application of
provisions of Act, 2019 read with Rules,
2020.

 (V) In similar circumstances in
Dr. Beoncy Laishram (supra) a Single
Bench of Manipur High Court has directed
to issue all requisite certificates in terms of
Act, 2019.

 (VI) In Jane Kaushik (supra)
Supreme Court has crystallized the object
and importance of Act, 2019 and Rules,
2020 and for reference its paragraph No.
130 is reproduced hereinafter:

"130. Thus, this Court is
mindful that constitutional guarantees do
not attain their true meaning by mere
textual inclusion in statute books but
through their faithful realization in the
lived experiences of individuals. Legislative
omission, whether absolute or relative,
strikes at the very root of this realization by
creating voids that impede the enforcement
of fundamental rights. The Constitution
entrusts this Court with the solemn duty to
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
act when such voids result in the denial of
equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. The
present case exemplifies how the silence of the
legislature and the inaction of the executive in
implementing the mandate of the 2019 Act and
the 2020 Rules have perpetuated systemic
exclusion of transgender persons. The failure of
the appropriate Government to formulate
inclusive
policies,
constitute
redressal
mechanisms, and ensure safe and equitable
access
to
educational
and
employment
opportunities,
constitutes
not
a
mere
administrative lapse but a violation of the
constitutional rights. It is, therefore, incumbent
upon this Court to remind the State that the
promise of equality under the Constitution is
not a passive assurance but an active
obligation, one that demands continuous
vigilance and affirmative measures to translate
the guarantees of the Constitution into tangible
and transformative realities for all persons,
including transgender individuals."

 (VII) A Coordinate Bench of this
Court at Lucknow has in similar circumstances
directed the authorities to change the name in
educational documents Vedant Maurya alias
Kumari Soni (supra) and for reference relevant
part of judgment is reproduced hereinafter:

 " 4. याजचकाकताथ के पररवतथन जलंग के आिार पर
उ०प्र० शासन द्वारा जनवास प्रमाण-पत्र तर्ा िाजत प्रमाण-पत्र जनगथत हो
चुका है। याजचकाकताथ ने जवपक्षी सं०2 तर्ा 3 को संशोजित अंक-पत्र
तर्ा प्रमाण-पत्र प्रस्तुत करने के जलए प्रार्थना-पत्र जदया है, जिस पर अभी
तक कोई कायथवाही नहीं हुई है। याजचकाकताथ की जवद्वान अजिवक्ता ने
जशवन्या पाण्डेय बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य (2022) 1 All LJ 276 के
जनणथय का आश्रय जलया।

 5. जवद्वान अपर मुख्य स्र्ायी अजिवक्ता ने कहा जक
ट्रांसिेण्डर व्यजक्त (अजिकारों का संरक्षण) अजिजनयम, 2019 में ऐसी
पररजस्र्जतयों के संबंि में वैिाजनक प्राजविान जकये गये हैं। याजचकाकताथ
उपरोक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 2 (ट) में दी गयी ट्रांसिेण्डर व्यजक्त की
पररभाषा में आता है। अजिजनयम की िारा 5 के अनुसार याजचकाकताथ
को जिला मजिस्ट्रेट को ट्रांसिेण्डर व्यजक्त का पहचान प्रमाण-पत्र जनगथत
जकये िाने के जलए प्रार्थना-पत्र देने का प्राजविान है जकन्तु याजचकाकताथ ने
अभी तक उपरोक्त प्राजविान के अंतगथत कोई प्रार्थना-पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं
जकया है। अजिजनयम की िारा 6 तर्ा 7 के अनुसार िारा 5 के अंतगथत
प्रार्थना-पत्र प्रस्तुत जकये िाने के उपरान्त ही जिलाजिकारी ट्रांसिेण्डर
व्यजक्त का प्रमाण-पत्र जनगथत करेंगे तर्ा उसी के आिार पर शैजक्षक पररषद
अंक-पत्र तर्ा प्रमाण-पत्र में आवश्यक पररवतथन करना सुजनजित कर
सकते हैं।"

 (VIII) Similarly in K. Prithika
Yashini (supra); Arun Kumar (supra); S.
Swapna
(Transgender)
(supra);
K.
Gowtham Subramaniyam (supra); Shri
Vinod H.N. (supra); Poojitha B.P. (supra);
Christina Lobo (supra); Jeeva (supra); and,
X. vs. State of Uttarakhand (supra) different
High Courts have passed directions for strict
implementation of provisions of Act, 2019 and
Rules, 2020 in the benefit of Transgenders to
reduce the possibility of discrimination.

 6. In view of above, the writ petition
is allowed. Impugned order dated 08.04.2025 is
hereby set aside. Concerned respondents are
directed to act in accordance with law and on
basis of application filed by petitioner, the
required change shall be made in educational
documents of petitioner and fresh educational
marks sheet/ certificates be issued to petitioner
within a period of eight weeks from today.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 926
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ - C No. 36027 of 2025

Smt. Sonam & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents