Transgender Persons Amendment Act: Recognizing Self-Perceived Identity Will Render 169 Sections Unworkable, SG Tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today issue notice in another petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana has tagged the plea filed by one Anuraj M with similar pending petitions.

Sr Adv Anand Grover, appearing for the petitioner, told the bench, "They have completely excluded the mental aspect..If I believe that I am a woman born as a man.."

Notably, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, responding to the submission told the bench, "169 sections of various statutes will become unworkable..if we accept this man thinks he is a woman.."

Last week, Supreme Court issued notice to the Union government on another writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The proviso to Section 2(k) of the Act provides that the term "transgender person" does not include, and has never included, persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities. The petition has been filed by Ankani Biswas, a transgender advocate practising before the Calcutta High Court.

The petition assails the proviso to Section 2(k) of the amended Act, which states that the definition of a transgender person "shall not include, nor shall ever have been so included, persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities".

According to the petitioner, the provision is unconstitutional because it departs from the Supreme Court's landmark 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014), which recognised self-identification as the basis of legal gender recognition.

The present petition comes amid a batch of constitutional challenges pending before the Supreme Court against the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. On May 3, while issuing notice on the lead petitions, the top court declined to stay the operation of the amended law but agreed to examine the challenge, observing that the issues raised required consideration by a larger Bench. The matter was subsequently referred to a three-judge Bench.

Subsequently, the Centre moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of similar petitions pending before the Delhi, Kerala, Karnataka and Rajasthan high courts. On June 15, the apex court stayed all proceedings before the high courts on challenges to the amendment and directed that the constitutional validity of the law be decided by the Supreme Court itself to avoid conflicting decisions.

Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition by Laxmi Narayan Tripathi argues that the amendment inflicts “irreparable constitutional injury” by violating rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. It raises a core constitutional question: whether the State can legally define a person’s gender identity in place of their self-perception.

The petitioners include a prominent transgender rights activist who was part of the original litigation leading to the 2014 NALSA judgment, and a corporate leader and member of the National Council for Transgender Persons. They argue that the amendment represents a direct legislative override of binding constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court. At the heart of the challenge is the amended definition of “transgender person.”

The petition contends that the new provision replaces the earlier self-identification standard with a restrictive framework based on biological conditions and socio-cultural categories. According to the plea, this shift effectively excludes individuals who do not fall within specified categories such as hijra or intersex persons, thereby “erasing” a large section of the transgender community. The petition also criticises a provision that includes within the definition persons allegedly forced into transgender identity through coercive practices, arguing that it wrongly conflates victims of abuse with individuals who identify as transgender. This, the petition states, is both stigmatizing and constitutionally untenable. A key grievance is the deletion of the statutory recognition of the right to “self-perceived gender identity,” which was explicitly incorporated in the 2019 law following the NALSA ruling.

Case Title: ANURAJ M Vs UNION OF INDIA

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Hearing Date: August 3, 2026