CLPR represents Ms. Akira Mujawar and Ms. Sri Maya M in two writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 (‘The Amendment’). The petitions argue that the Amendment excludes them and threatens their ability to access social, medical and legal transition. The Amendment narrows the definition of transgender persons to only socio-cultural identities such as ‘hijra, kinner, aravani and jogta’ and intersex persons; introduces further hurdles for obtaining a transgender ID card including a medical board; and introduces four new criminal offences.
Both petitioners are currently undergoing hormone replacement therapy as part of their transition, and the petitions argue that the Amendment, by excluding transgender women from the definition and introducing offences that make ‘presenting a transgender identity’ and grievous hurt through ‘hormonal procedures’ elements of crimes, casts a chilling effect on their access to medical care. The language of other elements in these crimes such as ‘allurement or undue influence’ is also vague and arbitrary under Article 14. Further, it promotes stereotypes against transgender persons and is likely to have a disproportionate impact on transgender persons, in violation of the principles of equality under Articles 14, 15 and 16.
Further, Ms. Akira Mujawar was in the process of changing her legal documentation, including her passport and educational documents to reflect her self-determined name and gender. Ms. Sri Maya M was relying on a transgender ID card issued by the State of Tamil Nadu. The provisions of the Amendment that introduce a medical board, medical experts and the discretion of the District Magistrate to identify as transgender and compulsory surgery to identify as male or female would disturb the right of the petitioners to exercise their self-determined gender identity. This is a right that was upheld in NALSA v Union of Indiav as part of the right to dignity, privacy and autonomy under Article 21, and the right to expression under Article 19(1)(a), and later affirmed by Constitution Benches in Puttaswamy (I) v Union of India, Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India and Supriyo v Union of India.
The petitions also challenge the Amendment for affecting the rights of transgender persons who engage in begging or sex work to a livelihood, access to employment and education opportunities, access to safe spaces and shelter homes and the right to association with partners and chosen family.
The petitions pray for the Amendment to be struck down for being unconstitutional. Further, because of the grave and irreversible harms the Amendment could cause, the petitions ask for a stay on the operation of the Amendment, and that the petitioners’ medical treatment and change of name and gender in legal documents be allowed to continue in the interim.
The Court pronounced its interim order on 7th May 2026, after hearing Sr. Adv. Jayna Kothari for the Petitioners and ASG Arvind Kamath for the Union Government. The Court held that the ‘petitioners shall be permitted to continue their hormone replacement therapy as per the existing medical protocol’ and ‘concerned doctors and medical authorities shall facilitate continuation of such treatment without interruption’, subject to the outcome of the petitions or any orders passed by the Supreme Court, including in potential transfer proceedings.
This interim order clarifies to healthcare workers across Karnataka and beyond that the Amendment should not interrupt gender-affirming care.
The matter will be listed after the Summer Court Vacation, 2026.