The Madras High Court on Monday questioned the continued usage of the term “Gender Identity Disorder” to describe the state of persons who identify themselves as transgender or part of the LGBTQIA+ spectrum.

Justice Anand Venkatesh opined that it is inappropriate to use such terms since it presumes that LGBTQIA+ persons are suffering from a disorder, when their sexual orientations and gender identities are natural.

“(Even) big countries are trying to say there is nothing like that (LGBTQ+ identities) … Somehow impression is given it (LGBTQ+ identities) is a disorder. Why would you use this language – ‘Gender Identity Disorder’? it shows the mindset. Whereas what we are trying to do is tell the whole world, there is no disorder (in people being part of LGBTQ+ community). Nature has decided to create someone this way,” he said.

He added that if the society’s mindset does not change to accept such people as natural, all other efforts will ultimately go to waste.

“You can bring any change in curriculum, but if you continue to say these persons are suffering from “Gender Identity Disorder”, all of this is waste, because fundamentally we are not changing (our mindset)” the judge said.

The Court also criticised the National Medical Commission (NMC) for dragging its feet when it came to introducing changes to its regulations and the curriculum in medical schools to do away with outdated notions about the LGBTQIA+ community.

The Bench was told today that the NMC had failed to implement several proactive suggestions made by an expert committee on this issue.

“(Scientific institutions at the level of NMC) are assuming such persons are suffering from “Gender Identity Disorder”! And these are persons who are supposed to be looking at facts as facts,” Justice Venkatesh said.

The Court was also told that the NMC was yet to amend its regulations to classify conversion therapy as professional misconduct as the revised regulations introduced in 2023 were yet to be notified.

The judge proceeded to suggest that the existing regulations from 2004 be amended for now, so that conversion therapy is treated as misconduct.

“2004 regulations are in force. Therefore, till the new regulations come into force, steps can be taken to amend the existing regulations and to incorporate conversion therapy as professional misconduct,” the Court said.

The order was passed on a case that began in 2021 with a lesbian couple’s plea for protection in the face of opposition from their parents to their relationship.

Over time, Justice Venkatesh broadened the scope of the case and issued several directives for the welfare of LGBTQIA+ persons, including the legal recognition of LGBTQIA+ relationships, the need to revamp the curriculum in medical colleges to tackle queerphobia and a proposal to have a State policy for the welfare of the LGBTQIA+ community.

During today’s hearing, the State informed the Court that it was proposing to have two policies – one for the welfare of transgender and intersex persons and another for others who are part of the LGBTQIA+ community.

The Court questioned the rationale for such differentiation and asked the State to file a note on the difficulties faced in having one unified policy, instead of two.

The Court also asked the State to place the draft welfare policies before it, so that all stakeholders can given their inputs and ensure that the final shape of the proposed law is a workable one that is unlikely to be challenged later in courts.

The matter will be heard next on February 17. The judge added that come what may, he will not give up on this case.

“I will not get tired, I may get frustrated. I may lament, but that means I am building up energy inside. This is something I find potential for change. Bringing changes of this nature is very difficult. But look at the number of persons helping, that is our strength,” he said.

[Read Live Coverage]

In a landmark decision, Supreme Court on Monday held that disabled candidates can take scribes to write their exams even if they do not meet the benchmark disability criteria of 40 percent [Gulshan Kumar vs IBPS].

Up until now, only persons 40 percent of a specified disability could opt for a writer/ scribe.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the artificial distinction and bifurcation drawn between candidates with disabilities and those with benchmark disabilities (40% disabled or more)” need to be diminished.

“Guidelines issued by the respondent number 5 (Centre) pursuant to the directions of this court, have to be enforced, by extending the benefits for PwBD (persons with benchmark disabilities) candidates to all PwD (persons with disabilities) candidates in writing their examinations, without any hindrance,” the top court directed.

The apex court urged the examination bodies to implement accessibility measures to ensure that the examination centres are physically accessible and equipped to accommodate disabled candidates and ensure strict compliance of the RPwD Act, 2016 to prevent discrimination and provide equal opportunities to the persons with disabilities.

The Court issued the following directions:

(i) all the authorities / recruitment agencies / examining bodies to uniformly follow the guidelines issued by Department of Empowerment of Persons with disabilities in the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and ensure strict adherence through periodic surveys / verification;

(ii) carry out periodic sensitization drive at educational institutions to raise awareness among the examination conducting bodies so as to ensure that the OMs are effectively implemented;

(iii) set up a grievance redressal portal to register complaints, which would permit the candidates to approach it first before approaching the court of law;

(iv) inspect the guidelines framed by different authorities and re-notify the existing guidelines with an aim to ensure compliance;

(v) extend the validity of the scribe certificate (currently being valid only for 6 months) to prevent the long wait time after applying, especially, in rural areas.

The apex court directed that authorities abide by its directions in two months.

The direction came on a PIL filed by one Gulshan Kumar who moved the Court seeking scribe, compensatory time and other facilities in the light of his disability status for bank examinations.

Though the top court had earlier directed that Gulshan be provided with a scribe for the exams being conducted the SBI, the top court stated that rather than treating the case as infructuous it was important that certain guidelines be laid down for the future issues.

Pursuant to that, it issued the above directions today.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Vikas Jain. Respondent Common Recruitment Process was represented by Advocate Amarendra Kumar Sharma. SBI was represented by Advocates Sanjay Kapur and Arun Kumar Sinha. SSC CGL was represented by Advocate Shreekant Terdal.