Challenge to Transgender Persons Amendment Act 2026 | Supreme Court issues notice, declines interim stay
Challenge to the Transgender Persons Amendment Act, 2026Judges: Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi J
Today, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined requests from petitioners seeking an interim stay of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The Bench issued notice to the Union, returnable in four weeks.
The Act was tabled on 13 March 2026 in the Lok Sabha and passed on 24 March. The Rajya Sabha affirmed the law the next day. The Bill then received the President’s assent on 30 March. What followed were protests and public criticism claiming that the law contradicts the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgement in National Legal Services Authority v Union Of India.
Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi appeared for petitioner Laxmi Narayan Tripathi. Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari appeared for activist Akkai Padmashali. Alongside Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju and Advocate Shraddha Deshmukh, they summarised the main contentions to the Bench.
Singhvi: Act eliminates the concept of self-recognition
Singhvi began by explaining the differences in the definition of “intersex” and “transgender persons”, arguing that the Amendment Act reduces the second category to a vanishing point.
Singhvi argued that while the identity of intersex persons are defined involuntarily and at birth, transgender persons undergo a transition, voluntarily and with intent. He suggested that transgender persons often undergo a sex reaffirmation surgery to affirm their “psychological” and “metabolic” self. He contended that the Amendment Act prohibits such affirmative medical procedures.
Singhvi added that the NALSA verdict recognised self-recognition as a part of Articles 14, 19 and 21. Interjecting his briefing, the CJI asked if self-determination posed a danger of people masquerading as the other gender for the purpose of “grabbing reservation”. Reservations are for those, who because of their “physical” and “psychological” circumstances are deprived of opportunities, observed the CJI.
In response to the CJI’s contention, Singhvi contended that there are “no reservations” and argued that apprehensions regarding reservations arise when there are concrete instances of misuse after reservations are properly implemented. However, the Amendment Act takes away the rights of transgender persons under Article 21 today, he stated. He further stated that the basis of the NALSA judgement was removed by the Amendment Act.
Reverting back to the matter of sex reaffirmation surgery, the CJI asked if the Act makes such surgeries an offence. Singhvi reverted in affirmative, suggesting that provisions under the Act such as Section 2(k) and Section 18 restricts the definition of transpersons while creating new offences under the Act.
Justice Bagchi: Medical identification instead of self-determination
Justice Bagchi mentioned that the basic shift from NALSA under the Amendment is medical identification instead of self-determination. A medical identification under Section 6, leading to a verification under Section 7 will precede certification of transgender persons, said Justice Bagchi.
Singhvi replied that the Bench must consider the consequences of the Act in the present. He mentioned that Sections 18 (g) and (h) of the Act criminalises everyone who is currently undergoing hormonal therapy. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta interjected and clarified that it only criminalises acts which force a person undergo the surgery.
When the CJI prompted the question as to whether the Amendment Act grants or takes away any benefit available to transgender persons, the counsels reverted saying that benefits under schemes like Ayushman Bharat and SMILE shall only be available to transgender persons on certification under the Act. Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju also pointed out that persons receiving hormonal therapy had abruptly stopped receiving it due to the amendment.
Before ordering that notice be issued, the CJI remarked that since that law has been enacted, it should be notified formally. The Bench issued notice to the Union and all states through their Advocate Generals, returnable 6 weeks. The CJI further directed that the matter should be listed before a three-judge bench.
CJI Surya Kant: No question of interim relief
The CJI and Justice Bagchi unanimously declined the stay of the Amendment Act on the ground that the law has not been notified yet.
Singhvi clarified that the petitioners are not seeking a stay on the Amendment Act itself. It appeared that the other counsel were seeking a stay on some of the contentious provisions. It was mentioned that the Act risks jeopardy to people undergoing treatment today on a self-recognition application.