A women's group has approached the Supreme Court challenging the legal regime which allows biological males to be recorded as 'females' in official documents after undergoing sex reassignment surgeries.

The petitioner, an organisation named 'Women's Declaration International India', challenges Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, as amended in 2026, insofar as it enables biological males to obtain opposite gender certificates. The petitioner also challenges Rule 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, along with related regulatory provisions which enable persons to obtain official documents recording a gender different from their biological sex.

The petitioner has also sought reconsideration and clarification of the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA), which recognised the right of transgender persons to legal recognition of their gender identity.

The petitioner contends that these provisions adversely impact the impact the statutory protections and benefits specifically guaranteed for biological women.

Yesterday, a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana posted the petition along with other petitions challenging the 2026 amendment to the Transgender Protection Act.

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, for the petitioner, contended that the present petition particularly advocates the cause of women (biological females). He said that the provisions for trans persons are supported by the petitioner, but the Court may look at the impact on constitutional and statutory benefits exclusive to 'biological females'.

Sibal emphasised that these benefits must remain and cannot be interfered with. "You're showing light from the other end of the tunnel", Justice Bagchi remarked. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta conveyed that the reply in the main batch is being prepared and response to the present petition would also be included.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi also summarised the petitioner's argument : a trans person, assigned as male at birth but a female by disposition, should not have the same status as a biological female. The SG replied that his argument in that case would be that the issue can be left to the legislature. Justice Bagchi then said that according to the petitioner, the legislature has not addressed that issue.

"A transgender may not be able to bear a child, but the biological female will be able to bear a child", Justice Bagchi noted. When Justice Mohana opined that transgenders can bear a child, the SG clarified that transgenders "identifying as a female" cannot bear a child.

The SG further commented that "identifying as a man or woman" poses the real problem. "A biological man, with all physical attributes of a man, says I identify as a woman and thereafter claims right to contest the sports event etc. Some courts have passed orders that yes...so he will have all the strength and he would be participating in the female sports."

CJI responded that there are other "tragic incidents" also. SG agreed, underlining that men who identify as women are housed in women's prisons and there have been some incidents. Sibal supplemented the SG by citing illustrations such as a biological man, claiming to be identifying as a woman, insisting for a woman officer for personal search, or care by a female nurse.

He however clarified that the petitioner was not questioning the right to identify, and opposed discrimination against transpersons.

"But to the extent that it encroaches upon privileges and rights exclusive to biological female in these various statutes which are predicated on certain attributes of the biological female, which those transgenders though identifying as such may not have, is the question raised in the petition not raised in others", he added.

Later, the SG submitted that identification of a man as a woman cannot be objected. It is the conferment of positive rights based on that identification that is objected. He posed a situation where a man sought to be arrested tells the police that he has always identified as a woman (women can't be arrested after sunset). "How will the police react?" he asked.

At one point, Justice Bagchi noted that normally, transgender people are identified as trans-men (that is, those with attributes of a biological male but identifying as a woman). The SG responded that this category has been legislatively excluded now, and what's covered is someone born with congenital variations. The SG initially happened to use the term 'deformity', acknowledging later that that may not be the correct word. CJI then added that it may be referred to as a 'natural deficiency'.

Sex conflated as Gender : Petitioner

The petitioner argues that the existing legal framework improperly treats gender identity as determinative of biological sex for legal purposes, enabling persons assigned male at birth to obtain official documents recognising them as female and access constitutional and statutory protections specifically intended for biological women.

The petition contends that biological sex and gender identity are distinct concepts. While acknowledging a person's right to hold and express a gender identity, it argues that medical or surgical interventions and changes to official documents do not alter biological sex. According to the petitioner, giving gender identity precedence over biological sex undermines legal certainty and the rule of law.

"It is submitted that any medical or surgical intervention, however extensive it may be, does not alter the person's biological sex or alter chromosomes or genetics. These procedures may remove, reconstruct or modify particular organs, bodily features or secondary sex characteristics, but they do not convert the biological sex of the person into that of the opposite sex," the petition stated.

Cites High Court Rulings On Women's Reservation, NCC Admission

The petitioner has cited several judicial decisions and administrative actions to argue that recognising gender identity for legal purposes has implications for women's reservation, recruitment to sex-specific posts, participation in sports and access to sex-segregated facilities.

In Anjali Guru Sanjana Jaan v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court held that a person assigned male at birth who identifies as female could contest a Panchayat election from a constituency reserved for women.

It also refers to a decision of the Kerala State Election Commission in November 2025 permitting two transgender candidates, Amaya Prasad and Arunima M. Kurup, to contest local body elections from constituencies reserved for women.

The petition cites Hina Haneefa v. State of Kerala, in which the Kerala High Court permitted a transgender woman to be enrolled in the Girls Division of the National Cadet Corps (NCC).

Reference is made to S. Mani v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, W.P.(C) No. 29354 of 2025, in which the Madras High Court directed the State to appoint a person assigned male at birth, who had obtained documentation recognising a female identity and had previously worked as a male nursing assistant, to a vacant post of female nursing assistant at the Government Hospital. The petitioner argues that the duties associated with the post, including assisting patients with bathing, toileting, catheterisation and wound care, raise questions concerning the privacy and dignity of female patients.

In Anamika v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court permitted a person assigned male at birth who identified as female to participate in a district-level judo championship in the women's category, in the absence of a separate transgender category.

The petitioner argues that eligibility for women's sporting categories, particularly in contact sports, requires consideration of physiological differences and competitive fairness.

The petitioner also raises concerns over allowing biological men to be admitted to women's hostels or prisons based on their gender conversion.

The petitioner argues that the impugned legal framework infringes Articles 14, 15(3), 16, 19(1)(a), 21 of the Constitution by undermining protections and entitlements specifically available to women on the basis of sex.

The petition further contends that the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in NALSA v. Union of India, which recognised transgender persons' rights to gender identity and legal recognition, did not decide whether a person identifying as belonging to the opposite sex must consequently be entitled to every protection or benefit specifically reserved for that sex.

The petition has been filed through SS Shroff AoR.

Case: WOMENS DECLARATION INTERNATIONAL INDIA Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT AND ORS.