The constitutionality of the recently enacted Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 has been challenged by four separate petitions in the Kerala and Delhi High Courts.Both High Courts have admitted the petitions, which argue that the new law effectively erases the transgender community by replacing the globally accepted principle of “self-identification” with a rigid, medically determinative criteria controlled by the State.The Delhi High Court has listed two public interest litigations, filed by advocate Chandresh Jain and Lakshay Jain, for hearing on July 22. The Kerala High Court has also admitted two petitions filed by two transgender persons. On Tuesday, it asked the Union government to clarify whether the new law bars gender-affirming surgeries and hormone therapy, scheduling its next hearing for April 10.Here is why the 2026 amendment is being challenged, the common constitutional questions raised and the grievances brought before the courts.The common thread in the four pleas: Rollback of rightsAt the heart of all four petitions is the argument that the 2026 Amendment rolls back the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Supreme Court in its landmark 2014 NALSA judgment. In that verdict, the top court recognised transgender persons as a “third gender” and ruled that gender identity is a matter of personal autonomy and self-perception, not biological or medical criteria.Story continues below this adThe court said: “Self-determination of gender is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression and falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”Also Read | Transgender Rights Amendment Bill: Key Changes to 2019 Act ExplainedThe original Transgender Persons Act, 2019 incorporated this by giving transgender persons the “right to self-perceived gender identity”. The 2026 Amendment, however, removes this provision.Instead, it redefines a “transgender person” strictly through biological and medical parameters such as chromosomal patterns and genital anatomy. It also introduces medical boards for certifying a person’s gender identity, subject to the approval of a district magistrate.The petitioners unanimously argue that this shift from a rights-based framework to a “regulatory screening mechanism” violates the fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), freedom of expression (Article 19) and life and personal liberty (Article 21).Story continues below this adThey argue that the act discriminates against sections of the transgender community solely based on their socio-cultural identity or the absence of medical certification. They contend that gender identity is a form of expression and it therefore cannot be restricted through certification and legal non-recognition. They also argue that subjecting a deeply personal aspect of identity to state scrutiny violates the right to privacy, as upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2017 Puttaswamy judgment.The petitions against trans law in Kerala High CourtThe two petitions before the Kerala High Court — filed by a 38-year-old trans woman and a 34-year-old trans man — highlight the immediate, practical fallout of the amendment. Both petitioners, represented by advocate Padma Lakshmi, herself a trans woman, hold valid transgender identity cards issued under the 2019 Act.The trans woman’s petition raises a medical dilemma. She had commenced hormone therapy and intended to undergo gender-affirming surgery. However, she was diagnosed with severe hypo dysfibrinogenemia, a condition that causes excessive bleeding, making surgery life-threatening. Because the 2026 Amendment links legal recognition of change in gender identity to medical and surgical interventions, she argues that she is permanently excluded from being legally recognised as a woman.Story continues below this adTransgender Persons Amendment Act 2026 | Looking back at a decade of legal battles over gender identityHer petition also alleges that she was recently sexually assaulted by a man under the false pretext of marriage but police refused to take action because she is no longer covered under the new, restrictive definition of a transgender person. Both the Delhi and Madras High Courts have previously held that transgender women are covered by sexual harassment laws.The trans man’s petition, meanwhile, alleges that following the enactment of the amendment Act, a private medical institution abruptly halted his hormone replacement therapy. He argues that the Act arbitrarily excludes trans men and trans women who have not undergone medical intervention as well as non-binary and gender-queer persons. His petition notes that “the requirement of certification by a medical board imposes invasive and coercive conditions, violating dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy”.Both petitioners demand that the amendment act be struck down. Story continues below this adThe petitions against trans law in Delhi High CourtThe PILs filed in the Delhi High Court raise constitutional and scientific infirmities in the 2026 Act.Chandresh Jain’s petition questions whether Parliament can use ordinary legislation to dilute or reverse fundamental rights that have already been recognised and made operational by the Supreme Court.Flagging the introduction of a provision that mandates medical institutions to furnish details of individuals undergoing gender-affirming surgeries to the district magistrate, it argues that this creates a “de facto identity tracking mechanism” and a state “surveillance framework” that violates informational privacy and patient confidentiality.The petition also challenges the introduction of penal consequences — including imprisonment of up to ten years — for anyone who “compels or entices” a person to assume a transgender identity. Story continues below this adAlso Read | The Transgender Persons Amendment Bill and the debate over self-determinationWhile acknowledging the State’s interest in preventing coercion, the petition argues that the provision is “excessively broad and lacks clear definitional boundaries”, risking the criminalisation of legitimate social and cultural practices and “genuine transgender identities” as well as “enabling intrusive inquiries into personal history”.It relies on medical literature, including World Health Organization classifications, to argue that gender identity is a deeply internal psychological phenomenon. By mandating biological verification, the petition argues, the law forces medical authorities to perform a function that is “scientifically indeterminate”, rendering the entire framework arbitrary and unworkable.Lakshay Jain’s petition challenges the provisions that mandate medical certification and remove the statutory basis for self-perceived gender identity. His petition argues that the amendment transforms a “constitutionally recognised right based on self-identification” into a “conditional entitlement subject to medical and administrative approval”.The plea asks the court to protect transgender persons from coercive action for non-compliance with the act while the matter is pending.