The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union of India and all State governments on a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The petitioners contend that the legislation is ultra vires and unconstitutional, arguing that it effectively dismantles the principles laid down in the landmark NALSA (2014) judgment by curtailing the fundamental right to self-perceived gender identity.
The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi referred the matter to a larger three-judge Bench for authoritative adjudication. Taking note of the significant shift from self-identification to a framework of state-controlled medical certification. The court issued notice to the Centre as well as the State Government to be heard within four weeks.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, emphasised that the amendment marks a departure from the principle of self-identification, replacing it with medical and bureaucratic gatekeeping. He outlined two categories of affected individuals: first, persons with intersex variations(those born with biological characteristics that do not conform to binary definitions) who, he argued, are now wrongly subsumed within a broader transgender category while being denied their right to self-identify; and second, individuals whose gender identity is rooted in psychological and lived experience, including those who may later undergo gender-affirming procedures.
Singhvi argued that the amendment amounts to an impermissible legislative nullification of the NALSA judgment, asserting that while Parliament may remove the legal basis of a judgment, it cannot simply override it without addressing its underlying reasoning. In response, Justice Bagchi observed that the issue must be examined through the lens of Article 21, noting that the amendment alters the legal framework on which NALSA was decided by substituting self-identification with medical evaluation. It was further contended that the law has already had a chilling effect, claiming that individuals undergoing therapy are now being denied treatment due to the new requirements.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, defended the amendment, stating that it seeks to regulate extreme cases, including forced gender alteration, and does not prohibit voluntary transitions. Singhvi countered that, in practice, the law impedes self-recognition, as hospitals are reportedly refusing gender-affirming procedures without certification from a state-mandated medical board.
Senior Advocate Katju also submitted that individuals undergoing hormonal therapy have faced abrupt discontinuation of treatment following the amendment’s enactment.
The petitions seek a declaration that the 2026 Amendment Act is unconstitutional in its entirety for violating Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, as well as principles affirmed in NALSA and International human rights instruments such as the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), ICESCR (International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights), and UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Alternatively, the petitioners have challenged specific provisions of the amended law, including changes to Sections 2(k), 6, 7, 16, and 18 of the parent Act (Transgender Persons(Protection of Rights) Act, 2019).
Additionally, the petitioners have urged the Court to reaffirm the right to self-identification of gender as a fundamental right under Article 21, free from any requirement of medical, surgical, or bureaucratic approval. They have also sought protection of identity certificates issued under the 2019 Act, ensuring that such documents remain valid despite the amendment.
Further reliefs sought include directions to the Union government to enact comprehensive legislation aligned with the NALSA judgment, the Yogyakarta Principles (a set of international legal principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity.), and global best practices (generally refer to legal frameworks in countries that have moved away from medical gatekeeping toward a self-determination model). These include provisions for self-identification as the sole basis for legal recognition, reservation in education and public employment, robust anti-discrimination safeguards, recognition of family and inheritance rights, and the establishment of an independent statutory commission for transgender persons. The petitions also call for implementation of reservation benefits for transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes, in line with NALSA.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, enacted in March 2026, marks a significant shift in India’s legal approach to gender identity. Departing from the 2019 framework that recognised self-perceived gender identity, the amendment mandates certification by a medical board before legal recognition can be granted by a District Magistrate. It also introduces reporting requirements, obligating medical institutions to disclose details of gender-affirming procedures to authorities—provisions that have now come under intense constitutional scrutiny before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice marks the beginning of a high-stakes judicial review that could redefine the boundaries of personal autonomy and gender identity in India.
The post Supreme Court seeks response from Centre, States on challenge to constitutional validity of Transgender Amendment Act appeared first on India Legal.