Supreme Court refuses to stay Transgender Amendment Act

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Central government and States to petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

The law introduced sweeping changes to the legal framework governing the recognition, rights and protection of transgender persons.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, made it clear that it is not inclined to stay the operation of the new law. The Court added that the matter will be listed next before a three-judge Bench.

"Issue notice. Let notice be issued to all States through their advocate Generals. The matter shall be initially placed before 3-judge bench to be constituted by the CJI. No question of grant of any interim order..no question of interim stay," the Court today said.

The law in focus had received presidential assent on March 31. It amends the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. It redefines who qualifies as a “transgender person,” while also strengthening penal provisions to address serious offences such as forced gender identity and bodily harm.

The new legislation has met with criticism from opposition parties and LGBTQIA+ groups. Stakeholders have argued that they were not consulted at all prior to the introduction of the Bill in parliament. Two members of the National Council of Transgender Persons (NCTP), Kalki Subramanium and Rituparna Neog, resigned from their posts the day the Rajya Sabha passed the Bill.

A committee set up by the Supreme Court to examine transgender rights also asked the Union government to withdraw the Bill.

The criticism of the Act mainly relates to the removal of self-identification and the requirement of medical certification to recognise a transgender person's chosen gender. This goes against principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment of 2014.

Several petitions have been filed against the new law.

These include those by chairperson of National Council for Transgender Persons, Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and member Zainab Patel, the Kinner Maa Ek Samajik Sanstha Trust, and others by various individuals.

Senior Advocate AM Singhvi represented certain petitioners today and raised concerns that the new law does not allow self-recognition of one's gender.

"This Act (the 2026 law) prohibits this category of self-recognition (for identifying one's gender). So, if I go to a hospital and say I recognise myself as (a particular gender) and carry this operation (gender affirming operations).... the hospital (could say) no...this Act prohibits it (assigning a gender based on self-recognition)," he told the Court.

The Bench, however, asked whether people could pretend to be transgender to get welfare benefits, if self-identification continues to be a valid manner of identifying trans persons.

"In this country of 140 crore people, some can masquerade this facility for the grant of reservations also, isn't it?" asked the CJI.

Singhvi indicated that such concerns are misplaced.

"I have checked up. There is no reservation," he said.

Singhvi added that the new law violates the Supreme Court's ruling in the 2014 NALSA case.

"You cannot nullify the judgment. Basis can be removed. NALSA judgment is nullified and basis removal is not attempted," he said.

Justice Bagchi, however, questioned this argument that the new law has violated the NALSA judgment instead of removing the judgment's basis.

"This amendment changed the substratum of the law under which NALSA examined it. Self-identification is replaced with medical evaluation," he observed.

Singhvi went on to urge the Court to stay the amendment for now, as there were transgender persons who were facing difficulties in continuing gender affirming medical treatment that had started before the new law came into force.

"If I am undergoing therapy now.. by way of this Act it's illegal... People who are undergoing treatment .. it is not being allowed now. That's why prayer for stay," he said.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta weighed in by maintaining that the new law aims to curb instances of forceful gender changes or castration practices.

The Court proceeded to issue notice in the case to all States, adding that it is not inclined to stay the law for now.

Notably, petitions challenging the 2026 law are also pending before the Delhi High Court, the Kerala High Court and the Karnataka High Court.

Read more about the law here.