New plea in Transgender Act case before SC invites censure from trans, feminist groups

The petition seeks to narrow the legal recognition of transgender people in India. It asks the Supreme Court to read down the NALSA judgment’s recognition of a constitutional right to self-professed gender identity. It also says access to protections and entitlements reserved specifically for women should depend on biological sex alone, regardless of self-identification or medical intervention.

The petition further asks the Court to declare Sections 7 and 18(d) of the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act ultra vires. Section 7 concerns certification as male or female after gender-affirmative surgery. Section 18(d) penalises several forms of abuse against transgender people. The petition says gender identity and biological sex should not be conflated, citing concerns about compelled speech and women’s autonomy.

The petition was filed on October 10 and later tagged with other challenges. Feminist and transgender voices say the requested changes would erase transgender identity and remove already limited protection from discrimination and violence. The Court’s eventual ruling could shape legal recognition, safeguards, and access to women-specific entitlements.

The petitioner is Women’s Declaration International’s India chapter, also called WDI India. It filed the petition on October 10. The case was later tagged with other challenges by a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant on October 28. Its central requests concern gender recognition, women-specific entitlements, and provisions protecting transgender people.

The All India Democratic Women’s Association called the petition “utterly misguided.” It rejected the claim that recognising transgender rights discriminates against cisgender women. The organisation said the petition would undo the little protection available to transgender people and make them more vulnerable to discrimination and violence.

Transgender people also criticised the filing. Jane Kaushik said it personally mischaracterised her case and repeatedly called her a “biological male.” She said the Supreme Court had recognised her as a transgender woman. The criticism therefore focuses on both the petition’s legal demands and its description of transgender identity and court proceedings.

The NALSA judgment refers to National Legal Services Authority and Others v Union of India. In the article, it is identified as the Supreme Court decision that granted a constitutional right to legal recognition of self-professed gender identity. That principle allows a person’s declared gender identity to have legal significance, rather than making recognition depend only on biological sex.

The new petition does not ask the Court to leave that principle untouched. It seeks a reading down of NALSA concerning self-identification and says eligibility for protections available specifically to women should be determined by biological sex alone. It also seeks to remove the legal right to self-identify gender described in the judgment.

The dispute matters because NALSA forms part of the legal framework used to recognise transgender identity. WDI India’s position would narrow that framework. Opponents say such a change would erase transgender identity and reduce protection for people already facing discrimination and violence. The Supreme Court is hearing this petition alongside other challenges.

Section 7 concerns the procedure for applying for male or female gender certification after gender-affirmative surgery. It is therefore tied to how a transgender person may obtain official recognition in one of those categories. Section 18(d) creates an offence covering physical, sexual, emotional, verbal, and economic abuse against transgender people.

WDI India asks the Supreme Court to declare both provisions ultra vires. The article does not state a separate detailed argument explaining why each section should be struck down. It places the request within a broader challenge to the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act and to legal recognition based on self-identified gender.

The petition’s wider claims say biological sex and gender identity should not be treated as interchangeable. It also raises freedom of speech, compelled speech, and women’s dignitary autonomy. Opponents respond that removing these provisions would take away limited legal protection from transgender people. The Court’s decision will determine whether these provisions remain in force.

Section 18(d) sets imprisonment at between six months and two years for abuse against a transgender person. The article lists five forms of abuse covered by the provision: physical, sexual, emotional, verbal, and economic. It also says the offence carries a fine.

This makes Section 18(d) a criminal protection against multiple kinds of mistreatment, rather than only physical attacks. The provision recognises that abuse can occur through sexual conduct, emotional harm, words, or economic control. The article does not specify the amount of the fine or explain how courts choose a sentence within the stated range.

WDI India asks the Supreme Court to declare Section 18(d) ultra vires. AIDWA and transgender voices oppose that request because they describe the protection as limited but important. If the provision were invalidated, the specific statutory punishment described in the article would no longer apply under Section 18(d).

Under Section 18(d), a person convicted of the listed abuse may be imprisoned for between six months and two years. Therefore, the maximum imprisonment stated in the article is two years. The provision concerns abuse against transgender people.

The article identifies physical, sexual, emotional, verbal, and economic abuse. This range shows that the section addresses more than physical violence. It also says the punishment includes a fine, although it does not state the fine’s amount or explain whether it is additional to imprisonment.

WDI India’s petition asks the Supreme Court to declare Section 18(d) ultra vires. AIDWA described that request as part of an attempt to undo the limited protection available to transgender people. The article does not say whether the Court has suspended the provision or changed the sentencing range. It says the petition has been tagged with other challenges.

The article’s critics say the requested changes would weaken transgender people’s legal position. AIDWA says the petition would erase transgender identity and undo the little protection currently available. It warns that this could make transgender people more vulnerable to discrimination and violence.

The possible effects include narrowing the NALSA principle of self-identified gender recognition and invalidating Section 18(d), which covers physical, sexual, emotional, verbal, and economic abuse. The petition also seeks to limit women-specific protections and entitlements to people identified by biological sex alone. These changes could affect both recognition and access to legal safeguards.

The article does not state that the Court has accepted any request. The petition was filed on October 10 and tagged with other challenges on October 28. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision will determine whether the challenged provisions and recognition principles remain available. Jane Kaushik and feminist organisations are urging the Court not to reduce existing protections.