The Kerala High Court on Friday allowed two transgender persons to continue hormone replacement therapy after it was alleged that hospitals have stopped their treatment following the enactment of Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.

The Court was hearing two petitions challenging the recently enacted law.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said that if such treatment is brought to an abrupt stop for a person, there could be very "absurd results" for them.

"This should have been taken care of by the statute," the Court said

Thus, it passed the following direction:

"This Court is of the view that considering the interest of Justice, the hormone replacement therapy, if already commenced, in respect to the petitioners, shall be continued till its conclusion without any interference."

Interestingly, the Court remarked that the intention behind the new law might be to prevent youth from aping Western concept where kids were seen identifying themselves as cats, dogs and dressing up and behaving in that manner.

This was after Additional Solicitor General P Sreekumar, appearing for the Central government, flagged the issue of self-identification in countries like United States of America (USA).

"Internationally this has become a big issue. In the USA, so many people have declared themselves to be contrary to their biological sex. This is a huge issue," the ASG said.

At this, Justice Thomas said,

"The intention of the legislature might be (to prevent aping) western countries where kids might say they are a cat and no one can question it. That might be the intention of the legislature - to prevent it."

One of the petitions before the Court was moved by a transwoman and the other by another transgender person.

Both petitions assailed several provisions of the new legislation, which amended the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, by introducing sweeping changes to the legal rights, recognition, and protection of transgender persons.

The petitions also argued that by removing self-identification and adding mandatory medical certification, the 2026 Act directly contradicts the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment of 2014.

Both petitioners stated that after the amendment was notified, the private hospitals where they were receiving hormone replacement therapy stopped treating them.

In the last hearing, the Court had asked Additional Solicitor General of India P Sreekumar to get instructions on whether hormone replacement therapy and other gender affirming medical care had been halted due to the enactment of the amendment.

Today, the ASG said that the grievance regarding medical urgencies will not arise.

Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that both the NALSA judgment and the previous statute recognised right to self-identification perceived gender identity.

"While the legal issue may remain pending, there is an immediate medical issue that requires the attention of this court," Katju said.

Katju further submitted that there is a requirement for medical institutions to report on medical interventions for gender transitions.

"This has a chilling effect," the senior counsel added.

The Court remarked that the law may be targeted only against "self-perceived identity".

"Perhaps what the statute is saying is that it cant be exclusively self perceived identity but something more such as medical procedures might be necessary," the judge said.

ASG Sreekumar submitted that the amendment only excludes the self declaration.

"That is a different category. There the doctors are also of the view that it is their own mental state. It is not based on hormone treatment. The amendment also includes hormone treatment," he said.

Katju said that the Central government should then make a statement that therapy will not be stopped for those persons who are already undergoing it.

"That would be most helpful," Katju said.

However, the Court said the statute was not being stayed and proceeded to grant interim relief to the petitioners.

"I will pass the same order on both petitions. Ill post it in the second week of June," the judge said.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju.

Both petitions were filed through advocate Padma Lakshmi.

Additional Solicitor General for India P Sreekumar appeared for the Central government.