2019 Act Is Special Law; School Boards Can’t Deny Transgender Persons Record Updates: Allahabad HC

The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed the order on November 6, 2025, while allowing a petition filed by Sharad Roshan Singh, a transgender man, who challenged the Board’s refusal to update his educational records.

Sharad had obtained a Certificate of Identity from the District Magistrate under Section 6 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. After undergoing gender-affirming surgery, he received a revised certificate under Section 7 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, identifying him as male. On that basis, he sought a change of name and gender in his educational documents in accordance with Rule 5(3) of the Rules.

However, his request was rejected by the Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly, through an order dated April 8, 2025. The Board had claimed that no government order or regulation permitted such changes in educational records after a long lapse of time, and that the 2019 Act and Rules did not apply to educational documents.

Court disagreed, observing that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 is a “special legislation” intended to protect and affirm the rights of transgender persons, and that its provisions override administrative limitations. It said the authorities had committed a legal error by refusing to apply the law in the petitioner’s favour.

“The petitioner was entitled to apply under Rule 5(3) of the Rules, 2020 to change gender, name and photographs in all official documents, including educational certificates,” the court said, adding that the rejection order could not stand “in the eyes of law.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jane Kaushik vs Union of India (2025), the High Court reproduced paragraph 130 of that judgment, observing 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.” It quoted the apex court’s reminder to the State that “the promise of equality under the Constitution is not a passive assurance but an active obligation,” requiring continuous vigilance and affirmative measures to make those guarantees tangible for all persons, including transgender individuals.

Court also referred to similar directions issued by the Manipur High Court in Dr Beoncy Laishram vs State of Manipur and the Madras and Karnataka High Courts in several cases recognising the right of transgender persons to have their educational and identity documents updated to reflect their gender identity.

It further cited a coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench in Vedant Maurya alias Kumari Soni vs State of U.P. (2024), which had directed the state authorities to allow similar changes in school records for a transgender petitioner.

Holding that the Uttar Pradesh Board’s refusal violated the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 as well as constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated April 8, 2025.

The bench directed the authorities to act on the petitioner’s application and make the necessary corrections in his educational documents, including the issuance of revised mark sheets and certificates, within eight weeks.

“The required change shall be made in the educational documents of the petitioner and fresh certificates be issued within eight weeks,” the court ordered.

Case Title: Sharad Roshan Singh vs State of UP and 3 Others

Order Date: November 6, 2025

Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery