Kerala High Court asks Centre whether hormone therapy, sex change halted due to Transgender Amendment Act

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday asked the Central government to clear the air on whether gender affirming surgeries and hormone therapy are barred/ halted under the recently enacted Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) P Sreekumar about how the law impacts hormone therapy.

This was after two transgender persons moved the Court challenging the law and claiming that the hospital stopped their hormone replacement therapy citing the amended law.

"Their physical and emotional health rests on this. This treatment is being stopped due to this Amendment," Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju told the Court on behalf of the petitioner.

The Court then asked ASG Sreekumar whether such treatments are barred by the new law.

"Can person who is undergoing hormone therapy be affected by virtue of the change? Rather than stay of the provision, prayer can be granted individually to the petitioner. They are already in the process of sex change," the Court remarked.

"That is not the fault of the provision. It is a practical issue which is to be dealt with separately," the ASG replied.

"ASG please get instructions on this and if there is a reason why the changes have been brought in," the Bench said.

The matter will be heard again on April 10.

One of the petitions before the Court was moved by a transwoman assailing 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 petition 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.

The petitioner also stated that she has a transgender identity card and had already changed her name in gender in her pan card, ration card, aadhaar, etc. in accordance with the provisions of the 2019 Act.

She had started hormone replacement therapy and had decided to undergo gender affirming surgery as well. But due to a medical condition, she was told that surgery would be very dangerous for her.

Now, with the removal of self-identification and mandatory certification from a medical board, her identity as a transwoman is being erased, she contended. The validity of her other ID cards is also under question now, she added.

It was also her argument that the requirement for medical certification is violative of the right to privacy which was held to be an intrinsic part of the right to life under Article 21 by the Supreme Court in the landmark Puttaswamy case.

The petitioner also claimed that she was sexually assaulted under the false pretext of marriage but due to the enactment of the amendment, the police was not ready to take further action on the case.

Another issue raised by her was regarding the effect of the Act on shelter homes and support networks for transgender persons. She stated that she herself had been abandoned by her parents due to her gender identitiy. Now, others who face the same situation would be left with no home or help, the petition stated.

"Following the enactment, members of the transgender community are experiencing severe psychological distress, including suicidal ideation, due to fear of legal exclusion and social stigma," the petition stated.

The petition also contended that the non-inclusion of transmen and non-binary gender identities in the 2026 Act is arbitrary and violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India,

Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju, appearing for the petitioner, said that the petitioner's hormone therapy was stopped because of the law and this is taking a physical and emotional toll on the petitioner.

"The reason we have pressed for a stay is because the community is becoming invisible under the statute," she said.

"There cannot be a stay on the statute. There is a presumption of constitutionality," the judge remarked.

"I bow down to that. There are persons who have already procured transgender identity cards under the old statute. The difficulty is that they were already getting hormone therapy. But that is not being continued by the medical institutions which are saying their transgender status is now under question," Katju pointed out.

She flagged the issues due to the change in definition of transgender person.

"The amendment brought in by Section 2(k) reduces the scope of who is a transgender person. Earlier it included transmen, non binary people, transwomen etc. A person who was already getting medical therapy cannot be told to stop and wait now," Katju said.

She also said that the petition is not a public interest litigation (PIL).

"How is the petitioner individually affected?" Justice Thomas asked.

"Earlier there was an expansive definition of transgender. It is changed completely now. The therapy which was addressing my gender dysphoria is now being stopped by the private medical institution," Katju responded.

Katju explained how she falls outside the new definition of transgender persons.

"Under the new provision transgender person means a person having socio cultural identities such as hijra, kinner etc. I don't fall within these categories. One of the petitioners is a transman who is a daily wage labourer. I am not within these socio cultural groups. I am also not a person who at birth had any congenital variation of sex characteristics. Now it is a biological definition. I was also not forcefully compelled to become transgender. The definition has been changed to exclude persons with self perceived gender identity," she stated.

"What is there to show you were undergoing this therapy," the judge asked.

"I have made a statement in that regard and I have gotten a transgender identity card. It is there as exhibit p1," Katju replied.

The Court then asked the Additional Solicitor General about how the law affects hormone therapy.

The petition was filed through advocate Padma Lakshmi.

Another petition challenging the Act is pending before the Supreme Court.