A legal battle has reached the top court after new law on transgender rights sparked strong reactions across the country. A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The amendment introduces major changes in how transgender persons are recognised and protected under the law.
The petition has been filed by National Council for Transgender Persons chairperson Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and member Zainab Patel. The law received presidential assent on March 31. It modifies the earlier Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and redefines who qualifies as a “transgender person.” It also introduces stricter penal provisions to deal with serious offences, including forced identity and bodily harm.
Opposition, resignations and consultation concerns
The amendment has triggered criticism from opposition parties as well as LGBTQIA+ groups. Many stakeholders say they were not consulted before the Bill was introduced in Parliament. The lack of consultation has been one of the central issues raised in the petition.
The controversy intensified when two members of the National Council of Transgender Person, Kalki Subramanium and Rituparna Neog, resigned from their posts on the day the Rajya Sabha passed the Bill. Their resignations were seen as a sign of internal disagreement over the proposed changes.
A committee set up by the Supreme Court to examine transgender rights also raised objections. The panel, headed by retired Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon, wrote to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment asking the Union government to withdraw the Bill. The committee highlighted concerns about several provisions and urged reconsideration.
Self-identification debate and court observations
Much of the criticism centres on the removal of self-identification and the introduction of medical certification requirements. Critics argue that these provisions conflict with principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment, which recognised self-identification as a key right of transgender persons.
The Rajasthan High Court had also expressed concern, observing that the amendment risked turning “an inviolable aspect of personhood” into a State-mediated entitlement. However, the High Court later deleted these remarks.