New Delhi, May 5 -- The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre, all states and Union territories on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, even as it flagged concerns over the potential misuse of self-identification of gender to access benefits meant for transgender persons. A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, directed responses within six weeks. The matter will now be placed before a three-judge bench. Opening the challenge, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the amendment dismantles the core holding of the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in National Legal Services Authority Vs Union of India (NALSA), which had recognised self-identification of gender as a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 19 and 21. He submitted that Parliament cannot nullify a constitutional right judicially affirmed, warning that the new regime could exclude large sections of the transgender community from recognition and entitlements. The court, however, signalled that the issue would require a more nuanced examination. Chief Justice Kant observed that unregulated self-identification may be susceptible to misuse by individuals seeking to "corner benefits," indicating that the court would test the amendment on constitutional principles rather than proceed on the assumption that NALSA conclusively settles the field. "Will this not pose a danger? In a country of over 1.4 billion, there will be people desperate to get this orientation to grab opportunities otherwise available to persons entitled in this category...There are people who can masquerade (as transgender persons) for getting some reservations or privileges meant for this category," CJI Kant said. On his part, Justice Bagchi added that the legislature is competent to alter the legal substratum on which a judgment rests. "When you say NALSA says self-identification is a matter of dignity, we can say examine the amendment in the light of Article 21. This amendment changed the substratum of the law on which NALSA examined it. So, instead of self-determination, there is a medical evaluation," said the judge.P8...