Supreme Court agrees to hear pleas against Transgender Persons Amendment Act

THe sublime margaret court on mon in agreement(p) to see the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 even as it flagged concerns over the potential misuse of self-identification of gender to access benefits meant for transgender persons.A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, issued notice to the Union government, states and Union territories on a batch of petitions challenging the amendment, directing responses within six weeks.The matter will now be placed before a three-judge bench.Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the amendment dismantles the core holding of the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in National Legal Services Authority Vs Union of India (NALSA), which had recognised self-identification of gender as a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.Also Read:Eroding transformative rights for trans peopleHe submitted that Parliament cannot nullify a constitutional right judicially affirmed, warning that the new regime could exclude large sections of the transgender community from recognition and entitlements.The court, however, signalled that the issue would require a more nuanced examination. CJI Kant observed that unregulated self-identification may be susceptible to misuse by individuals seeking to “corner benefits,” indicating that the court would test the amendment on constitutional principles rather than proceed on the assumption that NALSA conclusively settles the field.“Will this not pose a danger? In a country of over 1.4 billion, there will be people desperate to get this orientation to grab opportunities otherwise available to persons entitled in this category...There are people who can masquerade (as transgender persons) for getting some reservations or privileges meant for this category,” CJI Kant said.Justice Bagchi added that the legislature is competent to alter the legal substratum on which the judgment rests. “When you say NALSA says self-identification is a matter of dignity, we can say examine the amendment in the light of Article 21. This amendment changed the substratum of the law on which NALSA examined it. So, instead of self-determination, there is a medical evaluation,” said the judge.The Union government, represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta, defended the amendment, particularly provisions criminalising coercive gender transitions. Mehta said that it targets forced interventions, including compelled castration or transition, and does not prohibit voluntary gender-affirming treatment.He also disputed the claim that the amendment excludes individuals from recognition, asserting that the law continues to operate within a binary legal framework.Also Read:Trans community mounts challenge to amended lawThe batch of petitions has been filed by a cross-section of activists and organisations, including Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, Akkai Padmashali and groups such as Kinner Maa Ek Samajik Sanstha Trust, among others named in the cases taken together before the court.The petitions challenge several core features of the amendment, which received presidential assent on March 30 but is yet to be notified.A key point of contention is the revised definition of “transgender person” under section 2(k), which replaces the earlier self-identification-based framework with one tied to specific socio-cultural identities and medically verifiable conditions.Petitioners argue that this shift risks excluding individuals who identify as transgender but do not fall within enumerated categories such as Hijra, Kinnar or Aravani.Another major ground of challenge is the requirement that a certificate of identity be issued by a district magistrate based on the recommendation of a medical board.According to the petitioners, this reintroduces “medical gatekeeping” that the Supreme Court had expressly rejected in the NALSA judgment as violative of privacy and dignity.The amendment also mandates that individuals who undergo gender-affirming surgery must apply for a revised gender certificate, a provision criticised as an intrusion into decisional autonomy.During the Monday hearing, concerns were also raised about the immediate impact of the amendment on access to healthcare. Senior advocate Arundhati Katju submitted that hormonal therapy has already been disrupted for several individuals.The bench, however, declined to issue any interim order, noting that the amendment has not yet been notified and is therefore not in force. “There is no question of granting any interim order,” said the bench.Also Read:Transgender Persons Act: DM’s certificate conclusive proof of gender for issuance of passport, says Allahabad high courtA caveator appearing in person also urged the court to proceed cautiously, informing it that sections of the community are currently engaged in discussions with the government to reconsider aspects of the law.The challenge comes amid sustained opposition from transgender rights groups since the Bill was introduced in March.Activists had then argued that it narrows the scope of the 2019 law by conflating gender identity with intersex variations and biological conditions, thereby excluding many within the transgender spectrum.They also raised concerns about privacy, particularly provisions requiring disclosure of medical procedures, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Justice K S Puttaswamy Vs Union of India (2017).Critics further contended that the amendment reflects a reductive understanding of gender transition as a singular surgical event rather than a complex, evolving process. Some also flagged the framing of penal provisions, arguing that linking transgender identity to coercion risks reinforcing stigma.