The Rajasthan High Court has formally sought a response from the Central Government regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The petitioners allege that the new amendments are “detrimental” to the community, undermining fundamental rights, privacy, and the principle of self-identification.
A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta issued notices on Tuesday to the Union Secretary of Social Justice and Empowerment and the Union Law Secretary. The court’s action comes in response to a petition filed by the NGO ‘Nai Bhor Sanstha‘, which contends that the 2026 amendments introduce regressive measures that violate the autonomy and dignity of transgender individuals.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, saw a swift legislative journey earlier this year. It was passed by Parliament on March 25 and received presidential assent from President Droupadi Murmu on March 30.
The amendment significantly altered the 2019 Act by:
- Removing the Right to Self-Identify: Replacing the personal right to declare one’s gender with a mandatory certification process.
- Mandatory Medical Boards: Requiring a physical examination by a medical board headed by a Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO).
- Magisterial Oversight: Mandating that the medical board’s report be submitted to a magistrate before a gender identity certificate can be issued.
- Identity Reclassification: Removing specific categories like ‘trans-man’, ‘trans-woman’, and ‘genderqueer’, while shifting focus toward “traditional” socio-cultural identities.
The petitioners argue that the requirement for physical examinations constitutes “medical gatekeeping” and directly infringes upon the right to privacy and personal autonomy. They claim that the shift from self-identification to mandatory medical certification is a regressive step that ignores the lived experiences of the community.
Furthermore, the PIL challenges the introduction of new offences under the Act. The NGO alleges that these offences carry stricter punishments but are “vaguely defined,” making them highly susceptible to misuse by authorities.
The case represents a critical judicial review of the Centre’s shift in policy regarding transgender rights. While the 2019 Act was initially seen as a step toward recognition, the 2026 amendments have triggered widespread protests within the community, who view the new certification requirements as a violation of the Supreme Court’s previous mandates on gender identity and bodily autonomy.
The High Court has now placed the onus on the Union Government to defend the constitutional validity of these amended provisions.
