THE SUPREME COURT today issued notice on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, directing that the matter be placed before a three-judge bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, issued notice returnable in six weeks to the Union government, all states, and Union Territories through their Advocate Generals and Standing Counsels.
‘Act eliminates the concept of self-recognition’: Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for petitioners Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, Zainab Patel and Santa Khurai, outlined three primary constitutional challenges to the Amendment Act. The first concerns the Act’s alleged elimination of self-recognition and self-certification for transgender identity. He opened by drawing a distinction between two categories of persons the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 had protected, that is, intersex persons, born with biological variations, and transgender persons. “This act eliminates the concept of self-recognition, self-certification,” he told the bench.
Singhvi argued that under the amended provisions, an individual who identifies as transgender and seeks gender-affirming medical treatment can no longer proceed on the basis of self-identification and that certification by an external medical board is now mandatory.
He argued that the Act prohibits voluntary gender affirmative medical interventions noting that undergoing such procedures without board certification has been made an offence. “First of all, it doesn't allow it, because only an external board can do it. Secondly, it makes it an offence.”
The second challenge, Singhvi contended, was that the Amendment Act effectively nullifies the NALSA judgment, the Court’s landmark 2014 ruling that recognised self-identification of gender as a facet of the right to dignity under Article 21, and also under Articles 19 and 14. “You cannot nullify a judgment… Now, NALSA is nullified and the basis removal is not attempted.” he submitted. He argued that the legislature cannot nullify a judgment of the Supreme Court without removing its constitutional basis, and that no such attempt has been made here.
Justice Bagchi engaged closely with this argument, noting that the judgement had not been nullified but only the substratum of law had been changed, “What is the basic shift?” he asked, as he went on: “Instead of self-determination, it’s the medical identification. The medical identification under Section 6, leading to a verification under Section 7, and thereby certification.” “That is what your Lordship has to examine,” Singhvi replied.
CJI Surya Kant raised a concern about potential misuse specifically, “Does it not pose a danger,” he asked, “that there are people in a country of 140 crore population who can masquerade this orientation only for the purpose of grabbing the reservation or certain privileges?”
Singhvi answered on two counts. “First and foremost, I have checked up, there is no reservation at all,” he went on, “This may happen in the future in 0.001 per cent cases, but it takes away Article 21 today. Society cannot, parents cannot impose on a person who has predominantly female leanings that you cannot undergo a sex change.” On the question of what benefits the transgender community currently receives, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that transgender persons are not excluded from existing schemes as they are recognised either as men or women. Singhvi countered that without a transgender identity certificate, exclusion was the practical reality.
Advocate-on-Record Shraddha Deshmukh, appearing in Manveer Yadav v. Union of India (a petition representing transmen), flagged the immediate human cost of the Act’s pending enforcement noting that individuals currently receiving hormonal therapy are being denied treatment mid-course, as healthcare providers cite the impending legal change.
Advocate Harsha Azad, a caveator appearing in person, raised a preliminary objection that the Amendment Act has not yet been notified and therefore has not come into force. Azad argued that the challenge was premature and that political engagement with the government was underway to prevent enforcement which the litigation, in their submission, risked disrupting. CJI Surya Kant acknowledged the point, noting that an un-notified Act does not qualify as law under Article 13, and declined to grant any interim relief, observing that a stay of the Act was not warranted given its non-enforcement status.
Singhvi clarified that the interim relief sought was limited in scope and that individuals currently undergoing therapy on the basis of self-recognition applications should not be denied treatment.
The case will be heard next before a three-judge constitutional bench.
Does the 2026 Amendment Act fundamentally dismantle the Transgender Act, 2019?
The constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court does not arise in a vacuum. The bench heard a batch of nine petitions, with petitioners including trans activists Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Dr. Akkai Padmashali to Santa Khurai, the Meitei Nupi Maanbi writer and activist from Manipur, and Rachana Mudraboyina. The 2026 Amendment Act, introduced in the Lok Sabha by Union Minister Virendra Kumar on March 13, 2026, has drawn near-unanimous condemnation from transgender activists, lawyers and community organisers across the country who have called for its complete withdrawal.
Critics argue that the Act does not merely amend the 2019 legislation but fundamentally dismantles it. It deletes the statutory right to self-perceived gender identity, replaces its broad and inclusive definition with a narrow medicalised framework, inserts a retrospective clause that threatens to void certificates already issued to over 32,000 people, and creates new criminal offences. The National Council for Transgender Persons, mandated by law to advise the government on transgender legislation, was not consulted before the Bill was introduced. Read our in-depth report on the issue here.
