The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued notice to the Centre, all States and Union Territories on a batch of pleas challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is examining the challenge and has constituted a three-judge bench headed by the CJI to consider the constitutional issues involved.

During the hearing, the Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the amendment undermines the right to self-identification and ignores the complexity of gender identity. Singhvi argued that there are two categories of the subject community: one where people are born with physically different body parts, and the other is where certain people go through a transformation by undergoing medical treatment to get their reproductive organs and breasts replaced.

“Prior to this Act, there was one intersex—some cases are involuntary different at birth. Even a boy can have female chromosomes. The other is trans—undergoing changes... this Act virtually reduces the second category to vanishing point,” it was submitted, contending that mandatory medical procedures for certification erase recognition of transgender persons.

The senior lawyer argued that the amendment overturns the foundation of the ruling in NALSA v. Union of India. “NALSA recognised self-identity. The amendment replaces self-determination—it is a medical examination and therefore certification... the amendment has done away with the substratum of the law,” he said, adding: “If you force somebody to undergo surgery, then it’s criminal.”

During the hearing, the Court raised concerns about possible misuse of benefits meant for the transgender community and sought clarity on existing entitlements. “Grabbing reservation or benefitting privileges which are for people who are actually deprived of their rights,” the bench observed, asking, “What are the privileges and benefits granted to the transgender community?”

Responding, Singhvi said the concern was misplaced at this stage. “There is no reservation at all. This may happen... if there is such a man, we will examine,” he submitted.

The Court has now sought responses from the Centre and all Union Territories (UT) within six weeks.

Published on May 5, 2026