Challenge to the Transgender Persons Amendment Act, 2026

Case Description

On 13 March 2026, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 (“Amendment Act”) was tabled in the Lok Sabha. The Act deleted Section 4(2) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019  which stated that “a person recognised as transgender under sub-section (1) shall have a right to self-perceived gender identity.” It also set up an “authority” consisting of a Chief Medical Officer or a Deputy Chief Medical Officer appointed by the Union government or state government. It also mandates that transgender persons should be issued a “certificate of identity”. 

A transgender person will be entitled to change their first name in the birth certificate or other official documents after the certificate of identity is issued. Further, the medical institution has to furnish details to the District Magistrate and the authority about the person who underwent surgery. The Act was passed in the Lok Sabha on 24 March. It was affirmed in the Rajya Sabha the next day. It received the President’s assent on 30 March.

During parliamentary debates, opposition members raised concerns regarding the absence of extensive stakeholder consultation, medical board scrutiny, mandatory reporting requirements, the removal of self-identification provisions and the narrowing of legally recognised identities. Several members sought greater deliberation and referral to a Select Committee. Amidst protests and an opposition walkout, the Bill was passed by voice vote. The Union Government defended the legislation as necessary to establish a “precise” and “verifiable” framework for identity recognition, prevent misuse of welfare benefits, and address exploitative practices.

On 24 April 2026, petitioner Laxmi Narayan Tripathi challenged the constitutionality of the  Amendment Act under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought that the Amendment Act be declared unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21. They argued that the Act departs from settled constitutional principles governing dignity, autonomy and gender identity. The petitioner also challenged the amendment definition of “transgender person” which deletes the statutory recognition of self-perceived identity, amendments introducing certification from a medical authority, and provisions concerning mandatory reporting and penal consequences.

The matter was listed before the Supreme Court on 4 May 2026. Petitioners argued that the Amendment Act removes the framework of self-recognition and replaces it with medical and bureaucratic verification mechanisms, thereby departing from the principles held in National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (2014). In NALSA, the Court recognised transgender persons as rights-bearing constitutional subjects entitled to equality, dignity, autonomy and legal recognition. It rejected a narrow “biological test” and adopted a “psychological test”, holding that gender identity is fundamentally linked to an individual’s deeply felt sense of self rather than anatomy, chromosomes or surgical status alone. The Court located self-identification within Articles 14, 19 and 21 and held that constitutional rights cannot be made contingent upon medical procedures or state approval. The Parliament enacted the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 after the NALSA verdict. 

During the May 2026 hearing, the Court considered concerns regarding the shift from self-identification to medical certification, as well as questions relating to possible misuse of identity-based benefits. The Court also noted objections concerning the maintainability of the challenge since the Amendment Act had not yet been notified. The Court clarified that it was not going to grant an interim relief at that stage. It issued notice and placed the matter before a Three-Judge bench.