New Delhi, 04 May (H.S.): The Supreme Court of India has declined to put an immediate stay on the constitutionally challenged amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and instead issued a notice to the Union government in a batch of petitions questioning the validity of the changes. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant passed the order while hearing petitions that allege the amendments violate the fundamental rights of transgender persons under the Constitution.
The petitioners have contended that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act undermines the rights of transgender persons by requiring them to seek government verification and certification of their gender identity, rather than allowing them to state and self‑identify their gender independently. They argue that, after the amendment, transgender individuals cannot simply declare their gender on official documents; instead, their gender identity must go through administrative or medical scrutiny approved by the state.
The petition argues that gender identity is a core aspect of an individual’s dignity, autonomy, and privacy, and that making it subject to medical or bureaucratic scrutiny runs counter to the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 (equality before law), 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
The petition cites the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India, where the Court recognised the right of transgender persons to self‑identify their gender as a fundamental right. In that judgment, the Court held that compulsory medical or administrative tests for gender certification are impermissible, and that every person has the right to choose their gender identity as part of their constitutional privacy and dignity.
Petitioners assert that the new amendments effectively roll back the gains secured by the NALSA judgment, as they reintroduce state‑controlled certification processes and centralise the validation of gender identity, thereby diluting the principle of self‑identification. They further argue that the changes are inconsistent with international human‑rights standards, which increasingly recognise self‑identification as the norm for legal gender recognition.
The petition warns that imposing a mandatory certification procedure for gender identity will expose transgender persons to long delays, bureaucratic hurdles, and potential harassment, and may ultimately leave many without access to welfare schemes, social security, and legal protections meant for them. It claims that the amendment will disproportionately affect marginalised transgender communities who already face social stigma, poverty, and limited access to documentation.
The bench has now framed the issue as a constitutional question involving the balance between state regulation of identity and the individual’s right to self‑determination, and has scheduled the matter for detailed hearing after the Centre files its response to the Supreme Court’s notice. Until then, the court has refused to stay the operation of the amended law, allowing the government to continue implementing it while the constitutional validity is under judicial review.
---------------
Hindusthan Samachar / Jun Sarkar
