Karnataka High Court upholds transgender women's right to continue hormone therapy

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday directed medical professionals to facilitate the ongoing hormone replacement therapy (HRT) of two transgender women even in the wake of the Transgender Persons Amendment Act passed earlier this year. [Akira Mujawar v. Union of India]

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum emphasised that interrupting their HRT mid-course could cause adverse physical and mental harm to the petitioners.

"The medical records produced by the petitioners prima facie indicate that both petitioners have been undergoing hormone replacement therapy since 11.11.2023. At this stage, it cannot be disputed that abrupt discontinuation of such ongoing medical treatment may have adverse and detrimental consequences on their physical and mental well-being."

The Court said that the continuation of the treatment would be conditional on the outcome of the present petition and any orders passed by the Supreme Court.

Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath, appearing for the Central government, had submitted that no one had prevented the petitioners from taking pills and that no evidence of coercive action against them was presented.

Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, appearing for the petitioners, argued that after the passing of the 2026 Amendment Act, doctors were apprehensive to prescribe the required medicines thus making it difficult for the petitioners to continue the HRT.

This restriction of access to medical care was violative of the women's fundamental rights under Article 14 and 21, she contended.

The transgender women had approached the High Court to challenge the amendment's definition of 'transgender' which has excluded them from the scope of the Act. As per the new definition, transgender persons are not allowed to self-identify as such. This goes against principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment of 2014.

The Supreme Court recently refused to stay the operation of the Act, while seeking a response from the Central government in a plea challenging the Amendment Act as being unconstitutional.