The petitioners sought continued access to hormone therapy and protection for identity-related processes, while the Union opposed interim relief and argued that the apprehended harm was only anticipatory.
Karnataka High Court Reserves Orders
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday, April 30, reserved orders on interim relief applications filed by two transwomen challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum heard the two separate petitions and reserved the matter for orders.
Petitioners Seek Continued Hormone Therapy
One petitioner is a transwoman who has undergone hormone replacement therapy for several years.
The second petitioner is also undergoing hormone therapy. She is also pursuing the process of changing her name and gender in official records.
The petitioners said the amended definition of “transgender person” under Section 2(k) of the 2019 Act may exclude them. They apprehended that this may affect their access to medical treatment and identity-related services.
Interim Protection Sought Against Amendment
Through interim applications, the petitioners asked the Court to protect their continued access to medical treatment, including Hormone Replacement Therapy.
They argued that the 2026 Amendment may affect their treatment and official documentation process.
Union Opposes Interim Relief
Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath appeared for the Union and opposed the interim relief.
He argued that no authority had asked the first petitioner to stop hormone therapy. Therefore, he submitted that the alleged harm remained only anticipatory.
ASG Kamath also told the Court that hormone tablets are available in pharmacies. He said the petitioner had not named any authority that had stopped her from taking them.
Union Distinguishes Kerala High Court Order
The Union also distinguished a recent Kerala High Court order in WP 14156/2026. In that case, the Kerala High Court had permitted continuation of hormone therapy.
ASG Kamath submitted that the Kerala case involved a hospital abruptly stopping treatment. However, he said the present case only involved an existing prescription.
He argued that the Court could not grant interim relief unless the petitioner showed that an authority had positively stopped her treatment.
Similar Issue Pending Before Supreme Court
The Centre also informed the High Court that a similar issue is pending before the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Tripathi v. Union of India.
The matter is listed before the Supreme Court on May 4.
The Union further stated that it is filing transfer petitions before the Supreme Court.
Petitioners Rely On Section 18(g)
Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari appeared for the petitioners. She relied on the newly inserted Section 18(g) of the 2026 Amendment.
She submitted that the provision allegedly criminalises forcing any person to dress, present, or conduct themselves outwardly as a transgender person in certain circumstances.
According to the petitioners, hormone therapy helps them present themselves as transgender individuals.
They also alleged that doctors are now refusing to renew prescriptions because of the new provision.
Petitioners Press For Interim Protection
Senior Advocate Kothari argued that the Supreme Court may examine the constitutional validity of the Amendment. However, she submitted that the petitioners need interim protection at this stage.
She also relied on the Kerala High Court order, which had protected a similar right through interim relief.
After hearing both sides, the single judge orally indicated that orders would be passed and reserved the matter.
Earlier Proceedings Before High Court
Earlier, the Karnataka High Court had sought the Centre’s response on the two petitions.
The petitioners have challenged the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.
They alleged that the Amendment excludes persons who assert their right to self-identify their gender from the legal definition of “transgender person”.
Passport And Prescription Concerns Raised
In earlier hearings, Senior Advocate Kothari submitted that the second petitioner had applied for a passport. She said the petitioner required priority updation of her official records.
She also submitted that the first petitioner had received her last drug prescription in February and required renewal soon.
According to her, the 2026 Amendment may affect access to both medical and identity-related services.
ASG Kamath opposed interim relief. He said no authority had taken steps to cancel the Aadhaar, PAN, or other documents of the second petitioner.
He also submitted that the first petitioner had not shown proof that any doctor refused further treatment.
Challenge To Amended Definition
Section 2(k) of the principal Act earlier defined a transgender person as a person whose gender does not match the gender assigned at birth.
The definition applied whether or not the person had undergone sex reassignment surgery or hormone therapy.
The petitioners alleged that the amended definition excludes transsexual persons and non-binary individuals who identify based on self-perceived gender identity without medical intervention.
The petitions seek to strike down the entire Amendment. They allege violation of Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
