Transgender Amendment Act Challenge: Karnataka High Court Reserves Order On Interim Plea For Continuation Of Hormone Replacement Therapy

The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was hearing two separate pleas, one filed by a transwoman undergoing hormonal replacement therapy for a few years and another by a transwoman undergoing hormone therapy as well as engaged in the process of changing her name and gender in official documents.

The Petitioners apprehended that with their alleged exclusion from the definition of 'transgender person' under Section 2(k) of the 2019 Act, they would not be extended the above services. The interim applications sought a direction to make available continued medical treatment [Hormone Replacement Therapy] for the petitioners despite the operation of the impugned Act.

Today, on April 30, Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath, appearing for the Union, strongly opposed any interim direction, arguing that no authority had expressly stopped the first petitioner from taking hormone tablets and that the harm was merely 'anticipatory'.

“No authority had called upon the first petitioner to stop some hormonal therapy. The petitioner has not told as to which authority has stopped her from taking tablets. These tablets are available in any pharmacy,” he submitted.

ASG Kamath further distinguished a recent Kerala High Court order (WP 14156/2026) that permitted continuation of hormone therapy, stating that in that case, treatment was abruptly halted at a hospital. However, in the current case, only a prescription exists, he told the court.

“Unless the petitioner demonstrably shows which authority has issued a positive direction from stopping her to take the tablets...,” ASG argued before the single judge bench.

The Centre also informed the Court that a similar matter is under the consideration of the apex court in Lakhsmi Tripathi v. Union of India, which is listed on May 4, and that the Union is filing transfer petitions before the apex court.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, appearing for the petitioners, pointed to the newly inserted Section 18(g) of the 2026 Amendment, which allegedly criminalises forcing any person to dress, present, or conduct themselves outwardly as a transgender person under certain circumstances. She argued that the very act of hormone therapy enables the petitioners to present themselves as transgender individuals.

However, the doctors are now refusing to renew prescriptions due to the operation of the new provision, the senior counsel informed the court.

“Section 18(g) criminalises such acts. This HRT therapy is so that I can present myself as a transgender person, which is violative of this new section. Doctors are saying they wouldn't be giving us further prescriptions... The constitutionality issue can be before the SC. But interim protection is required,” Ms. Kothari submitted, adding that the Kerala High Court had already protected that right in a similar matter with an interim order.

After hearing both sides, the single judge orally indicated, “To that I will pass orders,” and reserved the matter for orders.

Earlier, the Court had sought the Centre's response on two pleas filed challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, which purportedly excludes persons who assert their right to 'self-identification' of gender from the legal definition of a 'transgender person'.

Previously, Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the second Petitioner had applied for a passport and that her official records should be updated on priority. Similarly, the first petitioner received her last drug prescription in February and it ought to be renewed soon. However, with the enactment of the 2026 Amendment, these services may not be available to them, the counsel said.

She pressed for interim relief to continue the treatment and submitted that the constitutionality of the impugned Act may be delved into later.

However, ASG Arvind Kamath, appearing for the Union, objected to the grant of interim relief and submitted that no steps have been taken so far to cancel the documents of Aadhar, PAN etc. of the second Petitioner, who has applied for a passport. Similarly, there was no proof that any doctor had refused to provide further treatment to the first Petitioner.

For context, Section 2(k) of the principal statute defined Transgender as a person whose gender does not match the gender assigned to that person at birth, whether or not such person has undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery or hormone therapy.

However, the amended definition excludes transexual persons and non-binary individuals who identify based on self-perceived gender identity without medical intervention.

The pleas pray that the entire Amendment to be struck down for violating Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Permits 'Continuation' Of Hormone Replacement Therapy For Two Transgender Persons Challenging 2026 Amendment

Case No: WP 11652/2026 & WP 11655/2026