Karnataka High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Challenging Transgender Persons Amendment Act 2026
Sebin James
15 April 2026 5:43 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court has sough 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'.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shanker Magadum was hearing two pleas— one filed by a transwoman undergoing hormone therapy since 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 apprehend that with their alleged exclusion from the definition of 'transgender person' under Section 2(k) of the 2019 Act, they will not be extended the above services.
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 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 first Petitioner.
The harm is only 'anticipatory' in nature and no interim relief should be granted without concrete evidence, he argued.
After hearing both parties, the Court listed the case for further hearing on Friday (April 17). Meanwhile, it has granted ASG time to file a response in the matter.
For context, Section 2(k) of the principal statute defined Transgender as a person whose gender does not match with 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 on the basis of 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.
The Centre informed the court that a similar matter is likely to come up before the Supreme Court in the matter of Lakhsmi Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: WP 11652/2026 & WP 11655/2026