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

The top court is hearing a clutch of petitions seeking redressal against the amendments made to the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act earlier this year

A petition filed by the Women’s Declaration International’s India chapter in the Supreme Court has invited censure from feminist organisations and caused consternation within sections of the transgender community for its central prayers, which include seeking the nullification of the legal right to self-identify gender granted by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and Others v Union of India judgement of the Supreme Court, and a directive that all benefits, protections and entitlements available specifically to women are denied to transgender persons, irrespective of their self identification and/or medical intervention.

The new petition has sought a number of reliefs. (Representative file photo)

“The petitioner seeks a reading down of NALSA with regard to a constitutional right to legal recognition of self-professed gender identity,” the petition stated. “Eligibility and access to all protection/ entitlements available specifically to women shall be determined by biological sex alone.”

WDI India filed the petition on October 10, but it was tagged along with other challenges by a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant on October 28.

The new petition has sought a number of reliefs, which includes the declaration that Section 7 and 18 (d) of the Transgender Persons Act be declared ultra vires.

While Section 7 pertains to the procedure to apply for male or female gender certification upon gender affirmative surgery, Section 18 (d) punishes acts of physical, sexual, emotional, verbal and economic abuse against transgender persons for a period of six months to two years with a fine.

The All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), an independent left-oriented feminist organisation issued a statement on Friday calling the petition “utterly misguided”.

“The petition propagates a false idea that “recognition of rights of transgender persons discriminates against cis-gender women and dilutes their rights and liberties”, the statement contended. “The petition is asking the Supreme Court to undo the little protection available to transgender persons and erase their identity… [this] makes them even more vulnerable to discrimination and violence,” the statement contended.

The WDI India petition also referred to a case brought before the court by a trans woman teacher Jane Kaushik, stating that cis-gender women, who called the trans woman “a biological male” were “characterised as engaging in body-shaming, which the employer was expected to prevent.” This was a violation of their right to remain silent and against compelled speech, the petition claimed.

Kaushik, who faced gender-based discrimination in two schools where she had found employment, also spoke out against the WDI petition which made a reference to her case. In October 2025, a two-judge bench of the court had ruled in the landmark Jane Kaushik v Union of India that the Union and the states had positive obligations to prevent discrimination against transgender persons. It also formed a committee under retired high court justice Asha Menon to study the options for livelihood and employment trans persons currently have.

“The petition is deeply personally offensive to me, as it repeatedly refers to me as a male, using the hate term ‘biological male’. My identity is neither the business of the WDII nor up for comment by its lawyers. The Supreme Court itself in its judgment in my case, Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, 2025 recognised me as a transgender woman. My transgender certificate of identity also recognises me. While it is clear that the WDII and its lawyers have no respect for me, it is glaringly obvious that they have no respect for the Supreme Court as well,” Kaushik said.

The WDI India petition claims that the conflation of gender identity and biological sex “compels all persons to express belief in gender identities or recognise biological males as “women”, in violation of the freedom of speech and expression.

“In Jane Kaushik V. Union ofIndia, (2026) 1 SCC 336… Biologically female staff members who voiced that the teacher was biologically male were characterised as engaging in “body shaming”.... Women are required not merely to share intimate residential spaces with a biological male, but to affirm that person’s “female identity”, on pain of institutional sanction. This constitutes a direct violation of a woman’s dignitary autonomy under Article 21,” the WDI India petition stated.

“The petition deliberately mischaracterises the facts before the Supreme Court in my case, as it portrays that I experienced body shaming and abuse on account of the discomfort of other residents of a women’s hostel of one of the schools the case was against. The school in question never made such an argument, nor did the Supreme Court give such a finding. I faced transphobic abuse from other staff and students of the schools against which I had filed a petition, but the WDII petition has effectively rewritten my experience to create an artificial clash between the rights of transwomen and cisgender women,” Kaushik said.

The top court is hearing a clutch of petitions seeking redressal against the amendments made to the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act earlier this year.

In 2014, a handful of transgender persons including Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and the NALSA petitioned the Supreme Court claiming widespread discrimination, social stigma and violence. The court granted legal recognition to what it termed the “third gender” and called self-identification of gender a fundamental right.