The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in a batch of petitions challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, raising concerns over restrictions on self-identification of gender and regulation of gender-affirming procedures.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the issuance of notice to the Union and States returnable within six weeks and directed the matter to be listed before a 3-Judge Bench.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the law significantly departs from the principles laid down in the landmark NALSA vs UOI, (2014) 5 SCC 438 judgment, particularly with respect to self-recognition of gender identity. It was argued that the statutory framework imposes external certification requirements and effectively curtails an individual’s autonomy in determining their gender identity.
Highlighting the core challenge, it was submitted: “NALSA says that self-recognition of your identity is vital. It is part of Article 21. it has to be my recognition, not an external recognition saying that you are or you are not.”
The petitioners further contended that the law restricts access to gender-affirming medical procedures by mandating certification through designated authorities, thereby interfering with personal liberty and bodily autonomy. It was argued that individuals who wish to undergo such procedures based on their self-identified gender are subjected to regulatory barriers under the current framework.
Responding to the submissions, the Bench engaged with broader concerns surrounding the law, including potential misuse of identity-based classifications and the scope of benefits available to the transgender community. The Court also sought clarity on whether the legislation had been brought into force and the extent of its implementation.
Concerns were raised about the possibility of misuse of self-identification, with the Bench observing that in a large population, there could be instances where individuals can masquerade this orientation only for the purpose of grabbing privileges.
“Does it not pose a danger that there are people in a country of 140 crore population, there are people who can masquerade this orientation only for the purpose of grabbing the reservation or benefits, certain privileges, which are actually meant for those who, unfortunately, because of their circumstances—physical or psychological—are actually deprived?”
Responding to the Bench’s concern on misuse, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that there is no reservation for transgender persons, and a “0.01% possibility of misuse cannot justify curtailing Article 21 rights.”
It was argued that the amended framework has the effect of criminalising ongoing gender-affirming processes. He submitted that where a person, whose predominant characteristics align with a different gender, is undergoing therapy, such conduct may fall foul of penal provisions under the amended law.
At this stage, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the law only criminalises forced gender reassignment procedures or coercive acts involving minors. Mr Singhvi, however, submitted that the amendment could exclude many individuals from accessing government welfare schemes. Responding to this, the Solicitor General stated, “You are either a man or a woman. You are not excluded.”
Subsequently, a caveator, Harsha Asad, informed the Court that the Act has not yet been notified by the Central Government and therefore has not come into force. It was submitted that the petitions may be premature, especially when certain stakeholders are engaging with the Government to address concerns at the policy level. It was further argued that judicial notice at this stage could disrupt those ongoing efforts.
When Singhvi sought limited interim protection to ensure that individuals currently undergoing gender-affirming treatment are not adversely affected, the Bench declined to grant interim relief, observing that the law is yet to be operationalised. “There is no question of granting any interim order,” the Court indicated.
Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju also pointed out that hormonal therapy for several individuals had been abruptly discontinued. In response, the Solicitor General stated that affected individuals are at liberty to approach the Court with specific grievances.
Taking note of the submissions, the Court issued notice returnable within 6 weeks and directed that the case may be placed before a 3 Judge Bench for further hearing.