New Delhi: A public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Women’s Declaration International India (WDI India) in the Supreme Court questions whether legal recognition of a person’s gender identity should automatically allow them to access protections meant specifically for women.
It argues that recognising a person’s gender identity should not automatically make them eligible for every constitutional and legal benefit reserved for women.
Dated 8 October, the petition challenges Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, as amended in 2026, along with provisions of the rules framed under the law and related administrative practices.
Biological sex and gender identity, WDI India argues, should not be treated as interchangeable when deciding who qualifies for women-specific legal protections and entitlements.
On 28 October, a Chief Justice of India-led bench issued notice to the Centre and tagged the petition—filed by advocate Shardul S Shroff of the law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co—with other cases challenging the 2019 Act.
Appearing for WDI India, senior advocate Amit Sibal argued that the petition raised a distinct concern about benefits and protections reserved for biological women. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the Centre would address the concerns while responding to the connected cases.
The petition has sparked a debate within the legal fraternity over whether law firms should face scrutiny for the cases they choose to represent.
Advocate and LGBTQ rights activist Saurabh Kirpal criticised the firm over its involvement in the litigation, pointing to the apparent contrast between this petition and the firm’s earlier engagement with him for discussions on LGBT rights during Pride Month.
He described the position as “hypocrisy”, rather than an application of the “cab-rank rule”.
The cab-rank principle is generally associated with a lawyer’s professional obligation to represent clients who seek their services, subject to applicable rules and circumstances.
Advocate and author Gautam Bhatia similarly questioned the use of the “cab rank rule” to justify legal work that he characterised as an attack on a marginalised group.
However, advocate Ashish Goel argued that lawyers and law firms should not use professional ethics as an excuse to avoid public scrutiny when it suits them.
Also Read: Age restrictions for social media not enough to protect children from online harm—NALSAR-IGAP report
What petition argues
The petition says it does not challenge transgender persons’ right to hold or express a gender identity, or their right to protection against discrimination, violence and indignity. Instead, it argues that these protections do not necessarily create a constitutional entitlement to be recognised as belonging to the opposite sex for every legal purpose.
At the heart of the plea is Section 7 of the 2019 Act, which deals with a certificate of identity indicating a change in gender following medical intervention. The petitioner argues that, even after the 2026 amendments, the legal framework can allow a person assigned male at birth to obtain official documents recording a female identity.
WDI India argues that a person’s legally recorded gender may differ from biological sex, which it says is the basis for certain protections meant specifically for women.
The petition also questions the absence of a clear statutory definition of “gender” for the purposes of Section 7. It contends that the provision is vague and overbroad, leaving authorities uncertain about eligibility for women’s reservations, public employment, sex-segregated facilities and other protections.
The petitioner invokes Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and 25(1) (freedom of religion:) of the Constitution.
It argues that the framework undermines equality, affirmative action for women, bodily privacy and personal security, while potentially compelling people to affirm beliefs about gender identity with which they disagree.
What the plea refers to
The plea refers to the Bombay High Court’s decision in Anjali Guru Sanjana Jaan v. State of Maharashtra, which dealt with a transgender woman’s eligibility to contest an election from a constituency reserved for women. It also cites a decision of the Kerala State Election Commission permitting transgender candidates to contest local-body elections from women-reserved constituencies.
The petition also quotes Anamika v. State of Kerala, concerning participation in a district-level judo championship in the women’s category. It argues that eligibility for women’s sporting categories, particularly in contact sports, requires consideration of physiological differences and competitive fairness.
The plea also cites Hina Haneefa v. State of Kerala, concerning admission to the girls’ division of the National Cadet Corps, and a Madras High Court case involving appointment to a post of female nursing assistant in a government hospital.
It raises concerns about access to women’s hostels, prisons and other sex-segregated spaces, including settings involving searches and intimate care. It argues that uncertainty over the legal meaning of “female” could make the implementation of existing safeguards inconsistent.
The petition contends that unreliable sex-disaggregated data could affect policymaking on women’s health, safety, representation and economic participation.
What it wants changed
The plea urges the SC to declare Section 7 unconstitutional, along with the challenged provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020.
It also seeks a declaration against administrative practices that allow gender changes in official documents. In particular, it challenges the UIDAI’s SOP for name and gender updates under its exception-handling process.
The plea also urges the court to reconsider or clarify aspects of its 2014 NALSAR judgment. In that ruling, the SC recognised transgenders’ right to legal recognition of their gender identity and directed the Centre and states to grant recognition as male, female or transgender.
WDI India argues that the judgment did not settle whether recognition of gender identity automatically entitles a person to every benefit or protection specifically reserved for the opposite sex. It wants the court to clarify the limits of that recognition in the context of sex-specific legal provisions.
Now, the Supreme Court must decide: how gender identity is recognised in law, how women-specific protections are defined, and whether the challenged provisions meet constitutional standards.
Aditya Edara is an alum of ThePrint School of Journalism, currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Tony Rai)