Channel
Challenge to the Transgender Persons Amendment Act, 2026
Passed in March 2026 and brought into force in May, the Transgender Persons (Amendment) Act is currently under challenge at the Court
Transcript:
The Transgender Persons (Amendment) Act. Two hearings, a transfer petition and a defunct national identity portal. With things moving fast, here’s a quick recap of developments at the Supreme Court.
Within a span of just two weeks in March 2026, the Transgender Persons Act of 2019 was amended – narrowing the definition of transgender persons and mandating medical board scrutiny for certification of transgender identity.
On 24th April, transgender rights activist Laxmi Narayan Tripathi challenged the amendment through an Article 32 petition, taking the matter straight up to the Supreme Court. Tripathi’s petition contended that the amendment violates Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21, and departs from key principles laid down by the Court in NALSA v Union of India, 2014.
Notably, in its landmark NALSA judgement, the Court rejected biological tests for gender identity and adopted a ‘psychological test’ instead, holding that gender identity flows from a person’s self-perception which is a constitutionally protected right.
The first hearing took place on 4 May before a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Issuing notice in the matter, the Bench directed listing before a Constitution Bench and refused to grant an interim stay as the Act had not yet been notified.
Subsequently, the Act was notified and came into force on 25 May. The second hearing took place just a few days ago on Monday, 3 August.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocates Jayna Kothari and Arundhati Katju submitted that the national portal for transgender identity cards had become completely defunct. When they sought interim action to preserve the validity of Transgender ID cards, the Bench sought concrete instances of hardship faced and deferred consideration of interim relief to the next hearing. Appearing for the respondents, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that transgender ID cards are not like ration cards, to which Advocate Kanmani R. responded, pointing out that they are indispensable for accessing housing, healthcare and other essential services.
The next hearing has been scheduled for 17 August. Meanwhile, there was another development in this matter that received less attention. You see, Tripathy’s petition is not the only one challenging the amendment. Several other petitions have been filed by diverse parties before multiple High Courts across the country.
The Union government has filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to consolidate all these challenges, shifting them to the apex court through Article 139A. On 15 June, a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Mohana issued notice in this petition, passing a stay on further proceedings before all high courts.
As our contributing editor V. Venkatesan points out, this move effectively suspends all Article 226 remedies, even before the transfer is decided. Observing that judicial delay in constitutional matters can cause injury as consequences unfold with each passing day, he argues that consolidation could turn Article 139A into a pause button for the executive.
V. Venkatesan goes on to compare this consolidation with previous instances such as challenges to demonetisation in 2016. Read his complete analysis on our website and follow SCO for detailed coverage of upcoming developments at the top court.