Document change regime developed following NALSA ‘grossly discriminatory’ against ‘biological females’: PIL

UK-based Women’s Declaration International has challenged parts of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2026 and also the operating procedures of UIDAI, which are meant to enable an update to the name and gender of persons on their Aadhaar cards. (Image used for representational purpose only) | Photo Credit: Getty Images

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court has argued that the regulatory regime developed in India on the back of the landmark 2014 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgement that recognised transgender identity is “grossly discriminatory” against “biological females”.

The PIL filed by the India chapter of UK-based Women’s Declaration International (WDI) argued that the document change regime also “dilutes” the rights, protections, and entitlements meant for “biological females,” and further impinges on the right to freedom of speech and expression by compelling all citizens to “express belief in gender identities”.

The trust, which describes itself as a “feminist, non-partisan, all-volunteer and all-female organisation advocating for the rights, dignity, safety, and freedom of women”, is seeking to overrule key portions of the NALSA judgement, specifically, the portion that ruled that legal recognition of gender identity constituted a part of the right to dignity and freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

In addition, the WDI has challenged parts of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2026, which provides the statutory framework for recognising gender identity and enables gender-diverse people to obtain gender certificates. The petitioners have also challenged the standard operating procedures of the UIDAI, which are meant to enable an update to the name and gender of persons on their Aadhaar cards.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday (October 28, 2026) issued notices to the Union Ministries of Social Justice and Empowerment, Law, and Health and Family Welfare on the PIL.

The WDI has argued that while people have a right to “believe in gender identities and hold and express these internal experiences”, the regulatory regime that has developed in India through the years since the 2014 judgement has legally recognised gender identity by “overwriting the sex marker in official documents with the person’s professed internal experience”. It added that this change in “sex marker” has been allowed to propagate into other identity documents like Aadhaar, Voter ID, passports, and birth certificates, which has “come at the cost of women’s rights to equality, dignity and freedom”.

In the petition, the WDI has cited instances of the State Election Commission in Kerala, in 2025, allowing two people the NGO identifies as “biological males self-identifying as female” to contest Panchayat elections on seats reserved for women; one “biological male” in Kerala being allowed to participate in the women’s category of Judo, a contact sport, and winning a State-level championship; one “biological male” in Tamil Nadu being appointed as a “female” nursing assistant at a government hospital; and one “biological male” being admitted to the National Cadet Corps Girls Division, “despite concerns regarding shared accommodation and intimate facilities”.

WDI India’s petition echoes arguments on gender identity and its recognition in the West, particularly in the United States of America, and in the United Kingdom, where the first half of this decade has seen multiple court decisions ruling that women-only spaces are meant to be reserved for people based on their sex and not their gender identity, and that language like “man”, “woman”, and “sex” in statutory provisions is meant to protect the rights and entitlements available by virtue of “biological sex”.

The WDI’s petition has cited the landmark U.K. Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers (2025)and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2026 decisions reserving women’s sports for “biological females” to make its case.

Notably, while WDI India has argued that the same regulatory regime that has allowed “biological males” to change their identity documents based on their self-identification of gender and threatened spaces, protections, rights, and entitlements meant for “biological females”, has also stripped “biological females” of these spaces, protections, rights, and entitlements by allowing them to change their identity documents to “male”.

Further, this petition’s arguments before the Supreme Court come at a time when India is on its way to giving effect to the 106th Constitutional Amendment, which provides for reserving 33% of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for women. This is also coming at the heels of the Union Government amending the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act earlier this year to redefine “transgender” persons based purely on physiological characteristics and removing a provision guaranteeing the right to “self-perceived gender identity”.

And even as the 2026 amendments to the trans rights law remain under challenge before the Supreme Court, WDI India has argued that the “constitutional issues” it has raised in its petition are not fully resolved by the 2026 amendments.

Published - October 29, 2026 02:55 pm IST