Supreme Court of India issued notice on challenge to Transgender Persons Amendment Act 2026, refusing stay. Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard plea citing NALSA judgment 2014.
The Supreme Court of India, with Chief Justice Surya Kant presiding, issued notice in a set of petitions that challenge the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The petitioners contend that the amendment weakens the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender an approach said to be firmly established in the landmark 2014 NALSA judgment. When the petitioners sought a stay on the operation of the law, the Court declined and remarked, “there was no question of staying anything”.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi appeared for the petitioners and opposed the provisions of the amended law, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union government. The petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution and have been brought by transgender rights activist Laxmi Narayan Tripathi along with others.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Seeks Centre’s Reply on Plea Against Transgender Amendment Act 2026
The plea argues that the amendment causes “irreparable constitutional injury” by allegedly violating fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. It also raises a central issue: whether the State can define a person’s gender identity, instead of recognising the individual’s own perception of their gender.
In outlining the background, the petitioners pointed out that the earlier Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 had recognised the principle of self-identification, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in NALSA v. Union of India (2014). They submitted that the NALSA judgment recognised gender identity as essential to personal autonomy, dignity, and freedom of expression. However, the present challenge claims that the 2026 amendment moves away from this position by adopting a narrower definition of “transgender person,” based on biological and socio-cultural factors.
The petition further claims that the revised definition excludes a large portion of the transgender community by recognising only specific categories such as hijra or intersex persons. It argues that this leads to the effective “erasure” of individuals who identify outside those limited categories. The petition also criticises language that includes persons allegedly forced into transgender identity, contending that it blends victims of abuse with individuals who voluntarily identify as transgender something the petition characterises as stigmatizing and legally problematic.
One of the key concerns raised is the removal of statutory recognition of the right to “self-perceived gender identity,” which had earlier been explicitly acknowledged. The petition says this amounts to the legislature overriding a binding constitutional principle. It also challenges a proviso excluding “self-perceived sexual identities,” describing it as a “direct collision” with established constitutional jurisprudence. The petition argues that the retrospective effect of such an exclusion may invalidate identities that were previously recognised under the earlier legal framework.
The amendment’s requirement for certification by a medical board has also been questioned. The petitioners argue that this reintroduces medical gatekeeping, which they say was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2014. They also challenge provisions requiring hospitals to report gender-affirming surgeries, asserting that such requirements amount to a “state surveillance regime” that infringes privacy and bodily autonomy. The petition further objects to the requirement to obtain a revised certificate after undergoing gender-affirming procedures, terming it coercive.
The plea also highlights the removal of safeguards that, according to the petitioners, previously protected continuity of rights even after a change in legal gender. It warns this could result in loss of existing protections. In addition, the petition questions the new penal provisions, arguing they risk portraying transgender identity as the “problem,” rather than addressing coercion or exploitation. Concerns have also been raised about sentencing inconsistencies, particularly where offences involving transgender persons allegedly carry comparatively lower penalties.
Relying on international human rights standards, the petitioners submit that the amendment represents a regressive shift away from norms increasingly recognising gender identity as a matter of individual autonomy without requiring medical intervention. They point to legal approaches in other jurisdictions that follow self-identification models.
In its final prayer, the petition seeks a declaration that the 2026 amendment is unconstitutional and asks for the reinstatement of the self-identification principle recognised in the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling. It emphasises that the issues raised go beyond statutory interpretation and directly affect constitutional values of dignity, equality, and personal liberty, urging the Court to “protect what it had constitutionally guaranteed” in its prior judgment.
Case Title: Lakshmi Narayan Tripathi and Anr Vs Union of India and Anr
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE