Registration of marriage with a transwoman; Right to Marry as a fundamental right; Whether transwoman is a bride; Right of self-identification of gender; Discrimination against Transgender persons; Equal protection of the laws

This case held that the term ‘bride’ under section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 includes both a woman and an intersex/transgender person who identifies as a woman. The petitioners, Arunkumar and Srija got married as per Hindu rites and customs on 31.10.2018 at Arulmighu Sankara Rameswara Temple, Tuticorin. When the petitioners approached the Joint Registrar of Tuticorin for registration of their marriage, the request was denied on that grounds that Srija is a transgender and not a woman. Their appeal before the District Registrar was similarly denied on this ground. The writ petition was filed against this refusal of registration of their marriage by the Respondents. The case followed the historic Supreme Court ruling in NALSA v Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438, where the court granted legal recognition to the third gender/transgender persons and assumed the self-identification model of gender identity. Right to marry, recognised as a facet of the right to life under the Constitution, was identified as one of the several civil rights which are linked with one’s gender identity.  Thus, the court in Arunkumar was merely following what was already the law of the land. It clarified that the state is not entitled to question the self-identification of the petitioner as a woman. ‘The only consideration is how the person perceives herself.’ The refusal to register the marriage breaches the constitutional rights to equality by discriminating against Srija on the ground of her gender identity. It also violates the values of privacy, self-identity, autonomy, and personal integrity of the petitioners and attacks her right to dignity. The court also found an infringement of right to religion as their Hindu wedding, otherwise valid under the law, was not registered. It quashed both the impugned orders and directed the respondents to register the marriage of the petitioners.