[1][2] The counsel representing the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education contested the petitioner's request for corrections, asserting that there was no legal obligation for such amendments due to the absence of a statutory requirement.

The counsel, representing the State Government of West Bengal, acknowledged that there was no specific statutory provision empowering the Administrator of the Board or the President of the Council to effect the requested changes.

However, he noted that guidance could be drawn from the discussions within the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) case and argued that individuals have a constitutional right to the recognition of their affirmed gender following Gender-affirming surgery.

Furthermore, the Bench relied on the observations made in the case that the lack of a statutory regime should not hinder the recognition of gender identity and criticized the Administrator of the Board's reasons for rejecting the petitioner's request.

The Bench overturned the decision made by the Administrator of the Board and instructed that suitable endorsements indicating the recognition of Tamal and Tamali as the same individual, post gender-affirming surgery, should be added to the certificates within a span of four weeks following the receipt of the judgment.

Citing the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) case, which affirms the right of transgender individuals to self-identify, Dr. Surabhi Shukla proposed that the court should have recognized that doctor's certificates provided by Tamal aren't a prerequisite for declaring gender identity.