Angel Lama, a 24-year-old trans woman, has been caught in a tedious legal battle since March 2023, seeking to obtain citizenship under her preferred name and gender. Despite winning a court case, bureaucratic resistance continues to obstruct her path to identity recognition which remains a bitter reality for many trans individuals in Nepal.

Manisha Dhakal, executive director of Blue Diamond Society, said that while there's no written law, current practice requires trans individuals to show proof of gender reassignment surgery and undergo a medical examination to obtain legal documents with their preferred name and gender.

“I was not ready for surgery financially or emotionally,” Lama said. “It's very expensive, and the necessary medical services, which involve huge risks, aren't available in Nepal.” Therefore, she filed a case at the court, which ruled in her favour.

On 28 March 2024, Lama went to the District Administration Office in Kavrepalanchok with the court’s ruling to obtain her citizenship. “The chief district officer, without properly reviewing the court's ruling, asked for proof of gender reassignment surgery,” Lama recalls. “When I explained my case to avoid surgery, the CDO misinterpreted the ruling and insisted I needed the surgery.”

Despite clarifying that no laws require surgery and that she had won the case, the chief administrator said further discussion was needed and asked her to leave the documents.

Lama, after consultation with her lawyer Ruksana Kapali, left the documents but insisted on getting a registration number, fearing neglect without it. When officials refused, citing a closed registration office, Lama sent the documents via post office for proof.

But she received no response, prompting her to file an RTI (right to information) case on May 30, giving a seven-day notice.

After multiple empty assurances that her case was being reviewed, Lama finally received an email on July 12 stating it had been transferred to the Ministry of Home Affairs for ‘opinion and guidance’.

The assistant chief district officer and information officer, Subash Paudel, confirmed the transfer. He said that while the official response time is fifteen days, the actual processing time is uncertain due to the ministry's nationwide caseload and could range from days to months.

Arjun Upadhayay, who has been working at the case branch of the district administration office for nearly two years now, has observed a recent increase in transgender citizenship applications. He noted that previous cases often required proof of gender reassignment surgery, but recent court rulings, like Lama’s, have allowed citizenship without surgery. This has created confusion for them.

“We have another case similar to Angel’s, and both have been forwarded to the ministry,” Upadhayay explained. “We understand the frustration of applicants who win in court but still face obstacles. However, the lack of specific legal provisions leaves us unsure how to proceed.”

The delay in obtaining citizenship has prevented Lama from updating her educational certificates and passport with her preferred name and gender. This also affects her work, travel and ability to represent the BDS at international events.

“After a year-long court case, I thought everything would be fine,” Lama said. “But the continued uncertainty is exhausting. If the Ministry doesn’t respond favourably soon, I may have to knock on the doors of the court again.”

Lama said that her case should have been straightforward as she hadn’t yet obtained citizenship. After winning her case, the ward office rectified her birth certificate on March 18, 2024 with the preferred name and gender and referred her to the CDO for citizenship, so she is confused about the delay.

“Citizenship is granted based on birth certificates. The ward office recognised my female gender, so I don't understand the hold-up,” she says. “To those who question the importance of having a preferred name and gender on legal documents, I ask them to imagine being a cis man or woman with the opposite gender listed. It’s equally challenging for me. I identify as a woman but must live with legal documents that state otherwise.”

Anish Acharya, a 33-year-old transgender man, shares a similar story of perseverance and frustration. Acharya’s struggle to change his gender marker on his citizenship has spanned a year and half.

Unlike Lama, Acharya already has a citizenship, but it does not reflect his preferred gender. Despite following every administrative process of the Chitwan District Administration Office, his appeal remains unheard.

“Every day, I was asked to come back later. I’ve visited the office over 26 times, and every time, I’m told they’re still looking into my case,” he says.

Advocate and trans rights activist Kapali points out that while Nepali policy allows transgender people to get documents marked as ‘other,’ the way this is put into practice varies a lot. Those who want ‘male’ or ‘female’ on their legal papers have to go through invasive medical procedures and checkups, Kapali says.

Acharya has followed the administration’s request for proof of gender reassignment surgery and has undergone ‘invasive’ medical examination multiple times.

After submitting required documents and hearing the same response repeatedly for over a year, Acharya’s patience is running low. “This ongoing process is wearing me down physically and mentally,” he said.

He lives in Chitwan but works in Morang, and the citizenship issue forces him to travel constantly between the two districts, which is financially draining.

“Every time I have to show my driver’s licence or any legal document, I feel humiliated because people see me differently from how I identify legally,” Acharya says.

He hopes to get citizenship someday to align his legal identity with who he truly is and eventually apply for marriage certificates when he starts a family.

During his recent visit to the district administration, Acharya was told that his medical proof of the surgery from the government hospital in Chitwan wasn't sufficient. They now want him to provide medical proof from Bir Hospital in Kathmandu and then they might reconsider his case.

“I've already gone through the process in Chitwan. Why didn't they ask for this from the start?” Acharya says. If this attempt doesn't work, he has no choice but to seek legal recourse.

Acharya argues for his right under Article 12 of Nepal's Constitution to obtain citizenship based on his preferred gender identity. Despite seeking citizenship with his chosen male name and gender, officials denied his request, citing procedural constraints due to his existing citizenship.

They suggested changing his gender to ‘other’ and keeping his former female name, which Acharya refused as it contradicts his identity as a man.

According to Acharya, officials justified their decision by stating they cannot alter the gender in existing citizenship records. They hinted that it might have been feasible if he had applied for citizenship afresh, without any prior record.

While the officials’ stance may seem reasonable, Acharya’s case reveals inconsistencies in Nepal’s approach to gender identity declarations. Unlike Acharya, Lama, who won a court case to amend her birth certificate, has not received citizenship reflecting her preferred gender identity despite her first-time application.

This discrepancy reveals the lack of a clear procedure for self-declaration of gender identity, leading to decisions shaped more by officials’ interpretations than individuals’ self-identification.

The cases of Lama and Acharya also show how transgender individuals face varying advice and instructions across administrative offices, complicating their efforts to align legal recognition with their identity.

The Yogyakarta Principles, developed in 2006 and endorsed by experts like former Nepal parliament member Sunil Babu Pant, affirm that each person’s self-declared sexual orientation and gender identity are fundamental to their identity, autonomy, dignity, and freedom.

These principles emphasise that legal recognition of gender should not depend on medical procedures. However, if someone chooses medical assistance for their transition, those services should be accessible.

Kapali points out a critical issue: there’s currently no straightforward way for individuals to amend their name and gender on citizenship documents without resorting to legal action. She describes frustrating interactions with authorities where accountability shifts between Parliament and the government without decisive action.

“The main problem,” Kapali explains, “is the lack of clear procedures despite Article 12 allowing citizenship based on self-identification. Officials often create their own rules, forcing us to seek resolution in court.”

Still, Kapali appreciates the supportive stance of courts, believing they are the only saving grace for transgender individuals and the constitution. However, she criticises the government for failing to translate progressive laws into clear policies. “Nepal has made strides in LGBTQIA+ rights,” she acknowledges, “but specific, actionable policies are needed.”

According to Kapali, there are currently 19 active cases in the Supreme Court concerning transgender individuals seeking adjustments to their name and gender on legal documents, and challenging inequitable citizenship procedures. In various regional high courts, including Patan with 10, Biratnagar with 4 cases, Pokhara with 3, two each in Janakpur and Hetauda, and one each in Okhaldhunga, Rajbiraj, Butwal, and Nepalgunj.

Dhakal, too, points out that policymakers must understand Article 12, which outlines citizenship based on gender identity, and respect court rulings supporting self-determination. “We want clear laws ensuring equal citizenship for transgender, third gender, and non-binary individuals,” Dhakal says.

Upadhayay said that they also want higher authorities to provide specific and clear provisions for handling these cases.

“Since childhood, we've battled society and family for acceptance, and now, the struggle continues as we fight the government for our gender identity,” Lama said. “How much longer must this continue?”