Delhi HC seeks Centre reply on pleas against transgender law amendments

THe new delhi heights margaret court on midweek issued mark on petitions challenging key provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, including changes to the definition of “transgender” and the removal of self-perceived identity as the basis for certification.A bench of chief justice D K Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia sought the Centre’s response in two petitions and fixed July 22 as the next date of hearing. “Issue notice to the respondents. Let an affidavit and reply be filed. List on July 22,” the court said in its order.The Bill to amend the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 24 and the Rajya Sabha on March 25 with a voice vote, amid strong objections from the opposition, which demanded that the Bill be referred to a standing committee for wider consultations. It became law after President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent on March 30.One petition was filed by advocate Chandresh Jain, while the other was filed by Lakshay Jain, a working professional.Jain, in his petition, contended that the amendment, by reintroducing state control over gender identity through mechanisms of verification and certification, amounts to a legislative rollback of a fundamental right already recognised by the Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India.In that decision, the Court held that gender identity forms an integral part of dignity, autonomy and personal liberty under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution, and affirmed that every individual has the right to self-identify their gender.The petition stated that the amendment fundamentally shifts the law from a rights-based framework to a regulatory screening mechanism, contrary to binding constitutional jurisprudence, which recognises gender identity as intrinsic and personal, and not subject to biological determination.“The Amendment further violates the rights to dignity, privacy and decisional autonomy under Article 21 by subjecting a deeply personal aspect of identity to intrusive State scrutiny, and is manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate under Article 14. It also infringes Article 19(1)(a) by restricting the expression of gender identity,” the petition stated.The introduction of medical boards and biological criteria such as genitalia, chromosomes and hormonal factors, the petition stated, is “intrusive”, “violative of bodily integrity and incompatible with the right to decisional autonomy, and the redefined classification of transgender persons is overly restrictive, biologically determinative and exclusionary of individuals whose identity is based on self-perception.“Identity cannot be subjected to physical examination or state scrutiny of the body. The redefined classification of transgender persons creates an arbitrary and unreasonable classification, leading to denial of legal recognition,” the petition added.