Supreme Court issues notice on plea challenging 2026 Transgender Amendment Act; refers matter to three-judge bench
Petitioners raised concerns that the Transgender Amendment Act 2026 nullifies the NALSA judgment without removing its constitutional basis, criminalises ongoing gender-affirming therapy, and strips individuals of the right to self-identify
Ajitesh Singh
Published on: 4 May 2026, 11:25 am
THE SUPREME COURT today issued notice on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, directing that the matter be placed before a three-judge bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, issued notice returnable in six weeks to the Union government, all states, and Union Territories through their Advocate Generals and Standing Counsels.
‘Act eliminates the concept of self-recognition’: Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for petitioners Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, Zainab Patel and Santa Khurai, outlined three primary constitutional challenges to the Amendment Act. The first concerns the Act’s alleged elimination of self-recognition and self-certification for transgender identity. He opened by drawing a distinction between two categories of persons the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 had protected, that is, intersex persons, born with biological variations, and transgender persons. “This act eliminates the concept of self-recognition, self-certification,” he told the bench.
Singhvi argued that under the amended provisions, an individual who identifies as transgender and seeks gender-affirming medical treatment can no longer proceed on the basis of self-identification and that certification by an external medical board is now mandatory.
He argued that the Act prohibits voluntary gender affirmative medical interventions noting that undergoing such procedures without board certification has been made an offence. “First of all, it doesn't allow it, because only an external board can do it. Secondly, it makes it an offence.”
The second challenge, Singhvi contended, was that the Amendment Act effectively nullifies the NALSA judgment, the Court’s landmark 2014 ruling that recognised self-identification of gender as a facet of the right to dignity under Article 21, and also under Articles 19 and 14. “You cannot nullify a judgment… Now, NALSA is nullified and the basis removal is not attempted.” he submitted. He argued that the legislature cannot nullify a judgment of the Supreme Court without removing its constitutional basis, and that no such attempt has been made here.
Justice Bagchi engaged closely with this argument, noting that the judgement had not been nullified but only the substratum of law had been changed, “What is the basic shift?” he asked, as he went on: “Instead of self-determination, it’s the medical identification. The medical identification under Section 6, leading to a verification under Section 7, and thereby certification.” “That is what your Lordship has to examine,” Singhvi replied.
