The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, which alleges that the law undermines the right to self-identified gender and introduces intrusive state-controlled verification mechanisms.

The petition before the pension of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia contends that the amendment marks a “legislative rollback” of rights recognised by the Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863, particularly the principle that gender identity is based on self-perception and not biological criteria. It argues that the introduction of medical boards is “unconstitutional gatekeeping” and certification requirements violate dignity, privacy, and autonomy under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

According to the plea, “identity cannot be subjected to physical examination or state scrutiny of the body,” and the shift from a rights-based framework to a regulatory regime risks exclusion and denial of legal recognition for transgender persons.

The petitioner has further submitted that the amendment creates “an arbitrary and unworkable framework” by relying on biological criteria to determine gender identity, despite the absence of any definitive medical test for such determination.

The petition submits that gender identity is a form of expression under Article 19(1)(a), and making its recognition contingent on certification amounts to an unconstitutional restriction. It further submitted that concerns over misuse of welfare benefits can be addressed through targeted measures, without subjecting identity to intrusive medical verification.

The petition also challenges provisions mandating disclosure of individuals undergoing gender-affirming procedures, arguing that such reporting requirements violate privacy, create a surveillance framework, and may deter access to healthcare. It further contests the introduction of penal provisions relating to “compelled” transgender identity as vague and overbroad, and criticises the omission of statutory recognition of self-identified gender, raising questions on Parliament’s power to dilute such rights.