New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued notices to the Centre, states, and Union Territories in response to a batch of petitions questioning the validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The law has sparked debate for introducing changes to how transgender identity and rights are defined and protected under the legal framework.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the respondents to submit their replies and scheduled the matter for hearing after six weeks. During the proceedings, senior advocate A. M. Singhvi argued that the amendment undermines the right of transgender persons to determine their own gender identity.
The court was also informed that provisions in the amended law could create practical difficulties for individuals undergoing hormonal or medical transition. However, no immediate stay on the legislation was sought, as it has not yet been formally notified.
One transgender individual, who had filed a caveat in the matter, urged the court to refrain from issuing directions at this stage, noting that discussions with the government were ongoing. The Bench, however, proceeded to seek responses from all concerned authorities.
The amendment, cleared by Parliament during the recent Budget session and approved by President Droupadi Murmu on March 30, revises the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. Among its key provisions are a redefinition of who qualifies as a transgender person and stricter penalties for offences such as forced identity and physical harm.
Petitioners including activist Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and diversity advocate Zainab Patel have argued that the amendment infringes upon constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. They contend that it weakens the principle of self-identification, which had previously been recognised as a fundamental right.
The plea also invokes the landmark NALSA v. Union of India (2014) ruling, where the apex court affirmed the right of individuals to self-identify their gender. Petitioners argue that requiring certification from authorities based on medical evaluation violates both dignity and privacy.
The legislation has drawn criticism from LGBTQIA+ groups, who claim they were not consulted before the changes were introduced. Some members of the National Council for Transgender Persons have stepped down in protest, while former judge Asha Menon has called for reconsideration of the law.
The case is expected to test the balance between legislative authority and constitutional protections, with broader implications for transgender rights in India.
