Kerala HC allows transpersons to continue hormone therapy after hospitals cite new law

The Kerala High Court has permitted two transgender persons to continue hormone replacement therapy (HRT), granting interim relief amid a legal challenge to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

The order was passed by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas while hearing two petitions that question the validity of the amended law. The petitions seek a declaration that the right to self-identification of gender is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioners had approached the court after private hospitals allegedly stopped their hormone therapy following the enactment of the amendment. Taking note of the medical urgency, the court observed that abruptly halting such treatment could lead to “absurd results”. “This should have been taken care of by the statute,” the court said, directing that hormone replacement therapy already commenced must continue without interference until completion.

The petitions challenge several provisions of the amended law, arguing that it alters the legal framework governing the rights, recognition and protection of transgender persons. They contend that the removal of self-identification and the introduction of mandatory medical certification contradict the principles laid down in the landmark NALSA v Union of India judgment of 2014, which recognised the right to self-identified gender.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General P Sreekumar, appearing for the Centre, said concerns about medical urgencies would not arise under the amended law. He argued that the changes were intended to regulate self-declaration and distinguish it from cases involving medical treatment.

Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju, appearing for the petitioners, stressed that the issue had immediate medical implications. She submitted that both the NALSA judgment and the earlier law recognised the right to self-identification, and warned that new reporting requirements for medical interventions could have a “chilling effect” on access to care.

The court noted that the law may be aimed at regulating “self-perceived identity”, suggesting that the legislature may have intended to require additional criteria, such as medical procedures, beyond self-identification.

In a notable observation, the court also remarked that the legislative intent might be to prevent the perceived influence of certain trends in Western countries regarding gender identity, a point raised during submissions by the Centre.

Despite these observations, the court declined to stay the amended law at this stage. Instead, it granted limited relief, allowing the petitioners to continue their ongoing treatment. The matter has been posted for further hearing in the second week of June. The petitions were filed through advocate Padma Lakshmi, with Katju appearing as senior counsel for the petitioners.
(With Bar and Bench inputs.)