Rajasthan High Court sought Centre’s reply on plea challenging Transgender Amendment Act 2026. Bench led by Sanjeev Prakash Sharma issued notice, citing concerns over rights, privacy and self identification of transgender persons.
The Rajasthan High Court has asked the Union Government to file a response in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The petitioners contend that the amendments are “detrimental” to the transgender community, asserting that they weaken fundamental rights, compromise privacy, and affect the principle of self-identification.
On Tuesday, a division bench led by acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta issued notices to the Union Secretary of Social Justice and Empowerment and the Union Law Secretary. The court’s move follows a PIL submitted by the NGO ‘Nai Bhor Sanstha’, which argues that the 2026 amendments introduce regressive provisions that violate the autonomy and dignity of transgender individuals.
Earlier this year, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, progressed rapidly through the legislative process. It was passed by Parliament on March 25 and received presidential assent from President Droupadi Murmu on March 30.
The amendment makes several significant changes to the 2019 Act, including:
- Removing the Right to Self-Identify: Replacing the personal right to declare one’s gender with a mandatory certification procedure.
- Mandatory Medical Boards: Requiring a physical examination by a medical board led by a Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO).
- Magisterial Oversight: Requiring the medical board’s report to be submitted to a magistrate before a gender identity certificate is issued.
- Identity Reclassification: Dropping specific categories such as ‘trans-man’, ‘trans-woman’, and ‘genderqueer’, and shifting the focus toward “traditional” socio-cultural identities.
Key points of the Transgender Amendment Act
A prominent change is a tightened definition of “transgender person,” moving away from a broad, identity-based approach to a narrower framework.
The amended provision recognises socio-cultural identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta, and includes people with intersex variations identified by biological characteristics such as genitalia, chromosomes and hormone patterns.
It also creates a category for people who have been forced, through coercion, inducement or deceit, to assume a transgender identity, including via surgical or hormonal interventions.
At the same time, the amendment explicitly excludes from the law’s definition those with “different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities,” removing self-identification as a standalone basis for recognition under the Act.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons says the earlier definition was “vague and broad,” making identification difficult. It adds that the law is intended to protect “a specified class of persons” facing severe social exclusion, rather than all gender identities.
It states,
“The legislative policy was and is intended to protect only those who face severe social exclusion due to biological reasons for no fault of their own and no choice of their own.”
The Act establishes a formal recognition process centred on a medical-board model. It defines an “authority” as a medical board headed by a Chief Medical Officer or Deputy Chief Medical Officer.
District magistrates will issue identity certificates after considering recommendations from these authorities and, where necessary, consulting other medical experts.
When gender change follows surgery, medical institutions must report relevant details to the authority, which will then issue revised certificates. The law also permits certified transgender persons to change their first name on official documents.
The amendment substantially expands Section 18 by introducing tiered punishments.
Where the earlier law provided up to two years’ imprisonment for general offences, the revised Act imposes much heavier penalties for serious crimes. Abduction and causing grievous harm to force someone into a transgender identity now carry a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment.
Comparable offences involving children attract life imprisonment. Coercion for exploitation, including forced begging or bonded labour, is punishable by 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Less severe offences such as denying transgender persons access to public spaces, forced eviction and abuse continue to attract imprisonment ranging from six months to two years.
The petitioners argue that compulsory physical examinations amount to “medical gatekeeping” and infringe upon privacy and personal autonomy. They further claim that moving away from self-identification toward mandatory medical certification is regressive and fails to consider the community’s lived realities.
In addition, the PIL challenges the introduction of new offences under the Act. The NGO maintains that these offences bring harsher punishments but are “ambiguously defined,” which they say makes them highly vulnerable to misuse by authorities.
The case calls for judicial scrutiny of the Centre’s policy shift on transgender rights. While the 2019 Act was viewed by many as a step toward recognition, the 2026 amendments have sparked widespread protests within the community, which sees the new certification requirements as contradicting the Supreme Court’s earlier directions on gender identity and bodily autonomy.
With this development, the High Court has effectively placed the burden on the Union Government to justify the constitutional validity of the amended provisions.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
