Andhra Pradesh Declines to Defend Transgender Law Amendments in Supreme Court

Two states have taken opposing positions before the Supreme Court on the Centre's 2026 amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, with Andhra Pradesh declining to defend the law and Uttarakhand arguing it is beneficial.

The court is hearing at least a dozen petitions challenging the amendments, which were introduced earlier this year. The changes removed provisions that had guaranteed transgender people the right to their self-perceived gender identity and narrowed the definition of a transgender person to physiological characteristics. The move drew widespread protests, and several members of the government's National Council for Transgender Persons resigned over the changes. Parliament passed the Bill and the government notified it.

In an affidavit filed in August, the Telugu Desam Party-led Andhra Pradesh government said it had no role in enacting the law and that its constitutional validity is primarily a matter for the Union of India. The state said it has not taken any independent action that is discriminatory towards transgender persons, and that it remains committed to safeguarding their constitutional rights, dignity, equality and welfare. It also undertook to comply with any directions the court issues.

The affidavit included data on transgender certification in the state: of 3,750 applications for identity cards, 3,233 certificates were issued, 403 were filtered out and 114 remain pending. The TDP, a BJP ally, had supported the Bill in the Lok Sabha on March 24, when its MP Byreddy Shabari was among NDA members who raised complaints that people were falsely adopting a transgender identity to beg at traffic signals.

Uttarakhand, ruled by the BJP, has defended the amendments. In its August submission, the state said matters concerning the rights and healthcare needs of transgender people are influenced by social norms and existing systems alongside government regulations. It said the Centre should address the constitutional challenges, but proceeded to defend the law, citing settled precedent that the constitutionality of an enactment by a competent legislature is presumed.

Uttarakhand submitted that the amended law's operation in the state has not resulted in any denial, dilution, erosion or abridgement of transgender persons' rights, and that identification, certification, welfare and rehabilitation processes have continued. It argued the amendments do not infringe any rights and are ameliorative and beneficial in nature, operating for the benefit, protection and social security of transgender people.

During the parliamentary debate, the Union government and NDA MPs had contended that retaining self-determination of gender identity would let people falsely claim transgender status to access welfare benefits. Opposition MPs objected, saying the right to self-determination was recognised by the Supreme Court in the 2014 NALSA judgment and that removing it was an attack on constitutional morality and the dignity of transgender persons. The Union government is yet to respond to the challenges in the Supreme Court.