NEW DEHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre and sought an explanation on how it would balance the rights of transgender persons and biological women while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) claiming that the transgender law affects protections available to women.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi sought the Centre’s response to the PIL filed by women’s organisation Women’s Declaration International India (WDII).
In its plea, WDII raised concerns over women’s reservations in local bodies, the accommodation of transgender persons in prisons, participation in women’s sporting competitions and safeguards available to women during arrests, searches and criminal investigations.
The PIL raised concerns over the potential impact of transgender rights legislation on constitutional and statutory protections and benefits reserved for biological women. It contends that the Transgender Amendment Act, 2026, and its implementation have blurred distinctions, leading to overlaps in reservations, women-only hostels, toilets, sports, scholarships and welfare schemes.
The organisation said the lack of a clear definition of a woman had led to confusion, affecting the privacy, safety and statutory rights of biological women. It has sought clarification of the definition and guidelines to ensure that benefits available to women are not eroded.
After hearing these submissions, the bench said the issue needed to be examined and issued notice to the Centre, seeking its response.
The top court is also hearing a separate challenge to the same amendment by Kinnar Akhara Mahamandleshwar Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, who has argued that it violates transgender rights. The petition describes the law as regressive and contends that it imposes intrusive certification requirements and violates the principles of self-identification and privacy.
The court tagged the two matters and scheduled further hearings after the Centre files its response. It said the government must explain how it intends to balance the rights of both groups without diluting basic constitutional protections.
The Centre is expected to file a detailed response explaining how it intends to implement the law, define relevant terms and prevent overlaps in benefits and spaces.
Senior advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, said, “Our concern is the impact on constitutional and statutory benefits exclusive to biological females. Those protections must remain and cannot be interfered with.”
“Transgender persons must have equal rights and privileges, but the question is whether those rights can encroach upon protections reserved for biological women,” Sibal said, noting that the plea offered a distinct perspective because it was filed by a women’s organisation and addressed implications for women’s rights relating to reservations, prisons, sports and safeguards during arrests.