A plea on the Transgender Amendment Act’s impact on statutory protections for women was heard by the Supreme Court, with the Centre saying the concerns will be answered in its reply in the pending batch.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, heard a petition by Women’s Declaration International India raising concerns about the impact of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 on statutory protections meant for women. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Court that these concerns would be addressed in the Centre’s response in the connected matters already pending [Women’s Declaration International India v. Union of India].
The plea was heard by a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appeared for the petitioner, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union.
Background
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 24 and the Rajya Sabha on March 25, and received Presidential assent on March 30, 2026. Among other changes, it removes the right to self-perceived gender identity recognised in Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act, revises the definition of “transgender person”, and ties recognition to a certificate of identity issued through a medical authority.
Petitions filed by transgender rights activists, including Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, challenge the amendment as contrary to the 2014 NALSA judgment. On May 4, 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice, declined interim relief and placed the matter before a three-judge bench. In June, on the Centre’s transfer petition, it stayed proceedings against the Act pending before various High Courts. At the August 3 hearing, the bench orally observed that rights already vested in transgender persons under the 2019 Act should not be disturbed, and asked the Centre to consider the amendment’s impact on existing identity-card holders.
Wednesday’s petition comes at the issue from the other side. It does not seek to defend or attack self-identification as such, but asks the Court to ensure that protections reserved for women by law are not affected.
“Repeated petitions may defeat the cause”
The Solicitor General said the concerns raised would be addressed in the response to the connected matters. Justice Bagchi remarked that repeated petitions may defeat the cause, as they require the Solicitor General to answer yet another petition when a batch is already pending.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the petitioner may have a point, but noted that the validity of certain provisions is already before the Court. The petition, he said, will add another angle of argument.
Petitioner’s concern
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal said the petitioner’s concern is the impact on constitutional and statutory benefits exclusive to biological females, and argued that those protections must remain and cannot be interfered with.
He added that transgender persons must have equal rights and privileges, and framed the question as whether those rights can encroach upon protections reserved for women.
Solicitor General’s hypotheticals
The Solicitor General said his reply in the other batch was being prepared and would include this aspect.
He then raised a series of hypotheticals. He referred to women’s sporting categories, saying there have been instances where courts permitted participation by a biological man who identifies as a woman, and raised concerns about male physical strength in such categories. He also referred to claims to women’s prison accommodation and warned of possible harm.
The Solicitor General pointed to statutory safeguards for women in criminal procedure, including searches only by a woman police officer and the recording of statements by a woman police officer, and the bar on arresting a woman after sunset. He posed the question of how police should respond if a man accused of a crime said he had always identified as a woman, adding that he was posing the question to himself.
He clarified the Centre’s position on identity itself:
“Identification itself cannot be objected to.”
His objection, he said, concerns “the positive rights being conferred”.
What next
The petitioners challenging the amendment contend that it dismantles the right to self-perceived gender identity recognised in NALSA, while the Centre defends the law and is preparing its reply in the batch. The written order of the day, including whether this plea has been tagged with the pending batch, was not available at the time of writing, and the next date of hearing was not stated. The submissions recorded above are the parties’ contentions; the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
Case Title: Women’s Declaration International India v. Union of India (case number awaited)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 28, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal for the petitioner; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union of India