The six petitioners are members of the trans community being transwomen, intersex persons, transgender men, and genderqueer individuals having filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 (“The Amendment”) that was passed in March 2026.
The Amendment alters Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 Act. It narrows the legislative definition of “transgender person” to include only traditional socio-cultural identities (such as hijra, kinnar, arvani, jogta, or eunuchs) and intersex persons with biological variations. Further, it takes away statutory protections for self-perceived gender identity by completely deleting Section 4(2). This effectively excludes transgender men, transgender women outside socio-cultural groups, and genderqueer individuals from legal recognition under the Act. Further, the amendments to Sections 6 and 7 introduce medicalisation and state surveillance by mandating state appointed medical boards for identity verification and requiring medical institutions to report all gender-affirmation surgeries directly to the District Magistrate. Moreover, it introduced new offences and inserted vague penal provisions under Section 18 (e)-(h) carrying sentences up to life imprisonment for those compelling an individual to assume, adopt, or outwardly present a transgender identity against their will or consent.
On behalf of the petitioners, CLPR has argued that the Amendment Act violates the fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, privacy, autonomy, and dignity guaranteed under Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It has been contended that the absolute exclusion of entire classes of gender identities fails the test of reasonable classification and constitutes manifest arbitrariness. The arguments rely on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438, which explicitly held that the right to self-identification is a fundamental right grounded in personal autonomy, independent of any medical or surgical procedures. It is further argued that the Amendment violates the principle of non-retrogression and progressive realization of rights established in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, asserting that the state cannot legally take away the right to self-determine one’s gender identity which is an integral part of one’s right to life, dignity and autonomy. Additionally, it is argued that mandatory medical certifications and institutional reporting violate the right to bodily privacy affirmed in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 and an exclusion of non-binary people in the Act directly commits “omissive discrimination” as deprecated in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 11248.
The writ petition seeks a declaration that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 is unconstitutional and ultra vires Part III of the Constitution. Along with the main petition, an application for interim relief was filed to stay the operation and execution of the 2026 amendment to restore the protections of the 2019 Act.
Notice was issued to the Union of India and all States by a bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India during the admission hearing on 4th May, 2026 where arguments were advanced by Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari. However, the operation of the 2026 amendment was not stayed.
The batch of matters is returnable on 3rd August, 2026 before a Three-Judge Bench.