The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on petitions challenging key provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, including changes in the definition of ‘transgender’ and removal of self-perceived identity as a basis for issuance of certificates.
A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia sought the Centre’s response in two petitions and fixed July 22 as the next hearing date. “They issued notice to the defendants. They called for filing of affidavit and reply. List on July 22,” the court said in its order.
The bill to amend the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was approved by the Lok Sabha on March 24 and the Rajya Sabha on March 25 by voice vote, amid strong objections from the Opposition, which demanded that the bill be referred to a standing committee for wider consultations. This law became law after President Draupadi Murmu assented to it on March 30.
One petition was filed by advocate Chandresh Jain, while the other was filed by Lakshay Jain, a working professional.
In his petition, Jain asserted that the amendment, by re-imposing state control over gender identity through verification and certification mechanisms, amounts to a legislative rollback of a fundamental right already recognized by the Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India.
In this decision, the Court held that gender identity constitutes an integral part of dignity, independence and personal freedom under Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution, and affirmed that every individual has the right to self-determine their gender.
The petition said that the amendment essentially transforms the law from a rights-based framework into a regulatory screening mechanism, in contrast to binding constitutional jurisprudence, which recognizes gender identity as intrinsic and personal, and not subject to biological determination.
“The amendment also violates the rights to dignity, privacy and autonomy of decision under Article 21 by subjecting a deeply personal aspect of identity to intrusive state scrutiny, which is clearly arbitrary and disproportionate under Article 14. It also violates Article 19(1)(a) by restricting the expression of gender identity,” the petition said.
The petition said that the introduction of medical boards and biological criteria such as reproductive organs, chromosomes and hormonal factors is “intrusive” and “violates bodily integrity and conflicts with the right to decisional autonomy, and the redefined classification of transgender persons is overly restrictive, biologically specific and excludes individuals whose identity is based on self-perception.”
“Identity cannot be subjected to physical examination or state scrutiny of the body. The redefined classification of transgender people creates arbitrary and unreasonable categorization, leading to denial of legal recognition,” the petition added.
