Kamal Ghorui
NEW DELHI: In less than a week since the controversial amendments involving definition of transgender persons, omission of “self-perceived identity” as the basis for approval for getting a TG certificate from a district magistrate and introduction of a medical board among other things were notified as law, a writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.The Bill to amend the 2019 law was passed by Lok Sabha on March 24 and Rajya Sabha on March 25 with a voice vote amid strong objections from the opposition that demanded that the bill be referred to a standing committee for wider consultations. It became law after President of India Droupadi Murmu gave her assent on March 30.The petition challenging the law has been filed by well known transgender rights activists Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Zainab Patel. At its core, the petition raises a key concern asking whether the state can redefine identity in a way that takes away a person’s right to define themselves.Incidentally, Tripathi and Patel were lead petitioners in the landmark NALSA v. Union of India (2014) case, which recognised the rights of transgender persons under the Constitution.In their current petition the activists have argued that the 2026 amendment changes the foundation of how transgender identity is understood in law. “It moves away from self-identification and replaces it with a narrow, state-driven definition based on fixed categories and medical conditions. In doing so, it departs from what the Supreme Court had already affirmed in NALSA that gender identity is a matter of personal dignity and choice,” the activists highlight.One of the central concerns raised is the replacement of the earlier definition of a transgender person with a closed framework. The petition points out that many transgender persons who do not fall within these categories could be left without legal recognition.The petition challenges the removal of the explicit right to self-perceived gender identity, and flags provisions that blur the line between transgender identity and situations of coercion or trafficking. It raises concerns that existing rights, including identity documents issued under the earlier framework, may be put at risk.The challenge is based on violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, along with established principles in international human rights law.“This law takes us backwards. In NALSA, the Supreme Court affirmed that our identity comes from within, not from a checklist created by the State. Today, that core principle is being undone. As petitioners in that very case, we have returned to the Court because this amendment does not just change definitions, it changes lives. It risks pushing many transgender persons outside the protection of the law itself,” Tripathi and Patel said in a joint statement.“This is not a technical correction. It is a constitutional question about dignity, autonomy, and whether the State can decide who we are,” they said.Both Tripathi and Patel have also previously served as members when the National Council for Transgender Persons – a statutory body under the law. Tripathi is the founder of Astitva Trust and National Network for Transgender Persons and Patel, a ‘Diversity Equity and Inclusion’ strategist who is also the founder of Pride Business Network Foundation.
