The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union Government on a petition challenging a key provision of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the petition filed by Ankání Biswas, a transgender advocate practising before the Calcutta High Court. The Court tagged the matter with other pending petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the amendment.

The challenge focuses on the proviso added to Section 2(k), which excludes people with different sexual orientations and “self-perceived sexual identities” from the statutory definition of a transgender person.

Advocate Challenges Exclusion

According to the petition, Biswas was assigned female at birth but later identified as a trans-masculine person.

The petitioner obtained a transgender identity card in 2023 and was recognised in official records as a third-gender person. The plea argues that the 2026 amendment creates uncertainty over whether such recognition will continue to remain legally valid.

Biswas has contended that the amended provision directly affects identity, professional records and access to legal and welfare protections.

Amendment Changes Definition

The original 2019 law broadly defined a transgender person as someone whose gender did not match the gender assigned at birth. It also recognised the concept of self-perceived gender identity.

The 2026 amendment narrowed that position by excluding people whose claim rests on self-perceived identity. Transgender groups and rights advocates have criticised the change, arguing that it introduces restrictive classifications and weakens legal recognition available under the earlier framework.

The Supreme Court will now examine whether Parliament can redefine the category in a way that affects people who already hold identity certificates.

NALSA Judgment Central

The petition relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, commonly known as the NALSA ruling.

In that case, the Court recognised transgender people as a third gender and affirmed a person’s right to identify as male, female or third gender. It treated gender identity as an integral part of dignity, autonomy and personal liberty.

The judgment also rejected compulsory biological or medical testing as the sole basis for recognising gender identity.

Biswas has argued that the amended definition undermines this constitutional principle by allowing statutory classification to override an individual’s internal and self-determined identity.

Existing Cards At Risk

One of the most important questions before the Court concerns people who already received transgender identity cards under the previous law.

The petitioner has asked whether the amendment can retrospectively disturb rights and recognition granted before it came into force. The plea argues that uncertainty over legal status could affect employment records, professional enrolment, welfare benefits and access to government schemes.

Biswas has alternatively sought a clarification that the amended proviso will not affect people already recognised under the 2019 Act.

The petitioner has also requested the Centre to clearly state whether existing transgender identity cards will remain valid.

Wider Rights Implications

The case goes beyond the status of one identity card. It raises a larger constitutional question: whether gender recognition depends primarily on personal autonomy or on categories defined by the State.

Supporters of the amendment may argue that a clearer statutory definition is necessary to distinguish gender identity from sexual orientation and to prevent misuse of legal protections.

Rights groups, however, maintain that sexual orientation and gender identity are separate concepts and that excluding self-perceived identities may particularly affect trans men, trans-masculine people and others who do not conform to conventional categories.

The outcome may influence access to education, public employment, healthcare, official documentation and anti-discrimination protections.

What Happens Next

The Union Government will now have an opportunity to respond to the constitutional challenge. The Court may examine the language of the amendment alongside Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the principles laid down in the NALSA judgment.

The Bench will also consider whether the law can affect previously recognised identities and whether Parliament’s classification meets constitutional standards of equality, dignity and personal liberty.

The challenge to the Transgender Rights Amendment Act has therefore become an important public-interest case. Its outcome could determine how India balances legislative power with an individual’s right to define and preserve their gender identity.