Petition by transgender advocate challenges the proviso to Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, alleging it violates the Supreme Court‘s NALSA ruling and threatens legal recognition based on self-identification.
Supreme Court issues notice on fresh challenge to proviso of Section 2(k) of the Transgender Amendment Act, 2026.
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union government on a fresh writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.
The proviso to Section 2(k) of the Act provides that the term “transgender person” does not include, and has never included, persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana tagged the petition with the batch of pending cases challenging the 2026 amendment to the Act.
The petition has been filed by Ankani Biswas, a transgender advocate practising before the Calcutta High Court.
What does the petition challenge?
The petition assails the proviso to Section 2(k) of the amended Act, which states that the definition of a transgender person “shall not include, nor shall ever have been so included, persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities”.
According to the petitioner, the provision is unconstitutional because it departs from the Supreme Court’s landmark 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014), which recognised self-identification as the basis of legal gender recognition.
Why has the petitioner approached the court?
The petitioner, who was assigned female at birth but later identified as a trans-masculine person, obtained a Transgender Identity Card in 2023 recognising them as a third-gender person.
The petition argues that the amended provision creates uncertainty by suggesting that the legislature never intended to include persons with self-perceived identities within the definition of transgender persons. As a result, it raises concerns over the continued legal recognition of individuals who have already been issued transgender identity cards under the earlier legal framework.
Concerns over professional identity
The petitioner has also highlighted the practical consequences of the amendment, stating that they are an empanelled legal services counsel and one of the few advocates in West Bengal who regularly assist members of the transgender community.
According to the plea, any uncertainty over the petitioner’s legal identity could affect professional records, undermine dignity and restrict access to justice for members of the community who seek legal assistance.
Apart from seeking to strike down the proviso as unconstitutional, the petitioner has sought an alternative direction that the amendment should not affect the rights of persons already recognised under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
In the alternative, the plea seeks a clarification from the Central government on whether the amended provision has any impact on existing holders of transgender identity cards.
The present petition comes amid a batch of constitutional challenges pending before the Supreme Court against the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. On May 3, while issuing notice on the lead petitions, the top court declined to stay the operation of the amended law but agreed to examine the challenge, observing that the issues raised required consideration by a larger Bench. The matter was subsequently referred to a three-judge Bench.
Subsequently, the Centre moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of similar petitions pending before the Delhi, Kerala, Karnataka and Rajasthan high courts. On June 15, the apex court stayed all proceedings before the high courts on challenges to the amendment and directed that the constitutional validity of the law be decided by the Supreme Court itself to avoid conflicting decisions.
Case Title: Ankani Biswas v. Union of India
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
