Kerala High Court Permits Hormone Replacement Therapy Amid Legal Challenge

The Kerala High Court has recently permitted two transgender individuals to continue their hormone replacement therapy (HRT) while challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. This amendment has introduced significant changes to the legal rights and recognition of transgender persons, notably removing the right to self-identification and mandating medical certification for gender recognition. The petitioners argue that these changes contradict the principles established in the Supreme Court's 2014 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment, which recognized the right to self-identification based on perceived gender identity.

Bar & Bench

On a recent Friday, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, ruled that the two petitioners, a transwoman and another transgender person, could continue their HRT. This decision came after claims that private hospitals had ceased their treatments following the enactment of the 2026 amendment. Justice Thomas emphasized the potential negative consequences of abruptly stopping such medical treatments, stating, "if such treatment is brought to an abrupt stop for a person, there could be very absurd results for them."

Bar & Bench

During the hearings, Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju, representing the petitioners, highlighted the immediate medical concerns arising from the amendment. She argued that the law's removal of self-identification and the requirement for medical certification create a "chilling effect" on access to necessary medical care. The Additional Solicitor General of India, P Sreekumar, defended the amendment, asserting that it only excludes self-declaration and does not impede hormone treatment.

Bar & Bench

Justice Thomas noted that the amendment might be aimed at preventing what he described as "aping Western countries," referencing concerns about youth self-identifying in unconventional ways. He remarked on the legislature's possible intention to ensure that gender identity is not solely based on self-perception but also involves medical procedures.

Bar & Bench

The court has not stayed the statute but granted interim relief to the petitioners, allowing them to continue their HRT. Justice Thomas indicated that a further hearing would take place in the second week of June. Katju urged the Central government to clarify that ongoing therapy would not be interrupted for individuals already undergoing treatment, which she deemed essential for the petitioners' well-being.

Bar & Bench

Critics of the amendment argue that it undermines the rights of transgender individuals by imposing unnecessary medical barriers to gender recognition. The removal of self-identification is seen as a regression in the legal protections afforded to transgender persons, contradicting the progressive stance established by the NALSA judgment.

Bar & Bench

The Kerala High Court is set to reconvene in June to further address the petitions challenging the 2026 amendment. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the legal rights and medical access of transgender individuals in India.

Bar & Bench