New Delhi, April 8 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Central Government in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) questioning the constitutional legitimacy of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia requested the government's response and has scheduled the next hearing for July 22.

The PIL, submitted under Article 226 of the Constitution, raises concerns about whether the contested law can impose medical certification and authority verification for recognizing gender identity, instead of acknowledging self-perceived identity.

This petition challenges the 2026 Amendment Act on the grounds that it undermines the statutory recognition of one's self-identified gender and introduces a system of state-controlled verification, certification, and screening of gender identity.

It argues that such stipulations represent a legislative rollback of fundamental rights upheld by the Supreme Court, particularly the rights to dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.

Citing the pivotal National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment, the petition asserts that the Supreme Court has clearly stated that gender identity is an essential aspect of an individual’s personality and should be grounded in self-perception, free from biological or medical evaluation.

The petition contends that the contested amendment infringes on the right to privacy and decisional autonomy by exposing a deeply personal aspect of identity to intrusive governmental oversight, thus being manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate.

Moreover, it argues that the amendment places restrictions on the expression of gender identity, thereby violating Article 19(1)(a), and creates obstacles in accessing identity documents, welfare benefits, healthcare, education, and legal protections.

The plea emphasizes that international human rights standards, including the Yogyakarta Principles and commitments under international treaties, affirm that gender identity is a matter of self-determination and should not be subjected to administrative or medical validation.

Highlighting the practical implications, the petition points out that the amendment poses a genuine risk of exclusion and denial of rights, as legal acknowledgment of gender identity is often vital for accessing essential services and protections.

In seeking relief, the petitioner has requested that the Delhi High Court declare the contested provisions unconstitutional and void due to their violation of fundamental rights, and to instruct authorities to recognize gender identity based on self-perception, aligning with the legal principles established by the Supreme Court.