Supreme Court agrees to hear pleas against Transgender Persons Amendment Act

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed to examine the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The court issued notices to the Union government, states and Union territories, with responses due within six weeks, and directed that the matter be placed before a three-judge bench. The hearing featured submissions from senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who argued that the amendment alters the substratum of the NALSA framework and could exclude transgender individuals from recognition and entitlements. The Union government defended the amendment, stating it targets coercive gender transitions and maintains a binary framework. The court declined to grant an interim order since the amendment is not yet notified. Petitioners include activists such as Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Akkai Padmashali, among others, challenging key features like the revised definition of 'transgender person', medical board-based identity certification, and certificate updates after gender-affirming surgery. The bench signaled a nuanced examination of constitutional principles rather than assuming NALSA settles the field.

The amendment received presidential assent on March 30, 2026, but it was stated that the Act had not yet been notified.

The Supreme Court delivered the National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India (NALSA) judgment, recognizing self-identification of gender as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21, shaping transgender rights in India.