The Supreme Court sought the response of the Union Government and States/UTs on petitions challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, while raising questions on whether self-identification of gender could be misused.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and States/UTs on a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice returnable within six weeks. The Court also directed that a three-judge Bench hear the matter next.
Petitioners Challenge Removal Of Self-Identification
At the outset, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi opposed the amendment. He argued that it takes away the right to self-identification of gender.
He submitted that the amendment goes against the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India. In that case, the Supreme Court recognised self-identification of gender as a fundamental right.
However, CJI Surya Kant raised concerns about possible misuse.
Singhvi Says Remote Misuse Cannot Defeat Article 21 Rights
Singhvi responded that, to his understanding, transgender persons do not presently receive reservation.
Therefore, he argued, there was no real possibility of people falsely claiming transgender identity to obtain such benefits.
He further submitted that a remote possibility of misuse in “0.01%” of cases cannot justify suspending the Article 21 rights of the majority.
Bench Discusses Legislative Power And NALSA Judgment
Singhvi also argued that a legislative amendment cannot nullify a judicial pronouncement.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, indicated that the legislature may remove the legal basis of a judgment.
Justice Bagchi observed:
Singhvi further submitted that the amendment may criminalise treatment for persons whose dominant characteristics align with another gender.
Solicitor General Clarifies Penal Provision
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta then intervened.
He submitted that the amendment criminalises only forced sex change or forcing a child into such change.
Singhvi then argued that the amendment would exclude several persons from government benefits.
In response, the Solicitor General said:
Caveator Says Petitions Are Premature
At this stage, Harsha Asad, appearing on caveat, told the Bench that the Act has not yet come into force.
The Centre has not notified the Act so far.
Therefore, the caveator argued that the petitions were premature.
It was also submitted that some members of the community were engaging with the Government on the political side. They were trying to persuade the Government not to enforce the amendment.
According to the caveator, issuing notice in the petitions could affect that process.
No Interim Relief As Act Has Not Come Into Force
Senior Advocate Singhvi sought interim protection for persons undergoing treatment.
However, the Bench said it could not grant interim relief at this stage because the Act has not come into force.
Singhvi clarified:
Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju also submitted that hormonal therapy had abruptly stopped for many persons.
The Solicitor General responded that affected persons should approach the Court.
Petitioners Allege Violation Of Fundamental Rights
The petitions challenge the Amendment Act, which received the President’s assent on March 30, 2026.
The petitioners contend that the amendment causes “irreparable constitutional injury” to transgender persons.
They allege violation of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
According to them, the amendment dismantles the principle of self-identification. They argue that the Supreme Court had already recognised this principle in NALSA v. Union of India.
They also submit that self-identification forms part of dignity and personal autonomy under Article 21.
Definition Of Transgender Person Challenged
One major challenge concerns the substituted definition of “transgender person” under Section 2(k) of the 2019 Act.
The petitioners argue that the earlier definition placed gender identity within the individual’s personal experience.
However, the amended provision replaces that framework with socio-cultural identities and medically verifiable biological conditions.
According to the petitioners, this change removes the foundation of self-identification. It may also deny legal recognition to persons who identify as transgender but do not fall within the listed categories.
Medical Board Requirement Also Challenged
The petitioners have also challenged the requirement of medical board recommendation.
Under the amendment, a District Magistrate can issue a certificate of identity as a transgender person only after examining the recommendation of a medical board.
The petitioners argue that this brings back medical certification.
They submit that the Supreme Court rejected such requirements in NALSA because they violate privacy and dignity.
Petitioners Object To Mandatory Revised Gender Certificate
The petitions also challenge the amendment requiring persons who undergo gender-affirming surgery to apply for a revised gender certificate.
The petitioners argue that the law earlier gave an option. However, the amendment now makes it compulsory.
Therefore, they contend that the change interferes with personal autonomy.
Penal Provisions Allegedly Stigmatise Transgender Identity
The petitioners have also objected to certain new penal provisions.
They argue that these provisions may stigmatise transgender identity by linking it with coercion or criminal conduct.
Moreover, they point out that the Act retains relatively low maximum punishment for offences such as sexual abuse against transgender persons.
At the same time, it prescribes higher penalties for trafficking-related offences.
According to the petitioners, this creates a legislative hierarchy that undervalues the bodily integrity of transgender persons.
Similar Challenges Pending Before High Courts
Similar challenges to the Act are pending before the High Courts of Kerala, Delhi, Karnataka and Bombay.
The Supreme Court is also hearing a petition filed by two transmen in Manveer Yadav v. Union of India. The petition seeks protection against their alleged exclusion from the Act.
Advocate Shraddha Deshmukh is arguing that petition.
Case Titles
Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.
W.P.(C) No. 548/2026
Kinner Maa Ek Samajik Sanstha Trust v. The Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.
W.P.(C) No. 541/2026
Manveer Yadav and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
W.P.(C) No. 519/2026
Akkai Padmashali and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
W.P.(C) No. 535/2026
Manoj Narula v. Union of India
W.P.(C) No. 512/2026
Rachana Mudraboyina v. Union of India and Ors.
W.P.(C) No. 546/2026
Adarsh Sori and Ors. v. Union of India
W.P.(C) No. 547/2026
Apratim Roy @ Suprava Roy v. Union of India
W.P.(C) No. 566/2026
Thangjam Santa Singh also known as Santa Khurai Khurai and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
W.P.(C) No. 568/2026
