The political fault lines over India's amended transgender rights law have now reached the Supreme Court, with two BJP-aligned states taking sharply different positions on the Centre's controversial changes. In an affidavit filed in August, the NDA-ruled Andhra Pradesh government declined to defend the 2026 amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, telling the court that it had no role in enacting the law and that its constitutional validity is "primarily a matter for the Union of India".
The move is significant because the Supreme Court is already hearing at least a dozen petitions challenging the amendments, which have drawn criticism from transgender rights groups, legal activists and opposition lawmakers. The Union government has not yet filed its response in the case, even as the legal challenge gathers momentum and the political debate around the law remains unresolved.
The amendments, introduced earlier this year, removed provisions that had guaranteed transgender people the right to their "self-perceived gender identity" and narrowed the definition of a "transgender person" to physiological characteristics. Those changes triggered protests across the country and prompted resignations from members of the government's National Council for Transgender Persons, underscoring the depth of opposition from within the community itself. Parliament passed the Bill and the government later notified it, but the controversy has only intensified since.
Andhra Pradesh, ruled by the Telugu Desam Party, a BJP ally, told the Supreme Court that it had "not taken any independent action that is discriminatory towards transgender persons". The state also sought to present itself as compliant with constitutional obligations, saying it "remains committed to safeguarding the constitutional rights, dignity, equality, and welfare of transgender persons, and undertakes to faithfully comply with any directions or orders" that the court may issue.
The affidavit also included state-level data on transgender identity certification. According to Andhra Pradesh, of 3,750 applications for transgender identity cards, 3,233 had been issued certificates, 403 had been "filtered", and 114 were pending. The figures were offered as evidence that the state's administrative machinery continues to process applications and extend recognition, even as the legal framework at the Centre is under challenge.
The state's stance stands out not only because it is ruled by a party aligned with the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance, but also because one of its MPs had publicly supported the Bill in the Lok Sabha. During the March 24 debate, Telugu Desam Party MP Byreddy Shabari was among NDA members who backed the amendments, including by raising complaints that people were allegedly falsely adopting a transgender identity for begging at traffic signals. That argument was central to the government's justification for tightening the law, with Union ministers and BJP-led NDA MPs insisting that retaining self-determination of gender identity would allow people to falsely claim transgender status in order to access social welfare benefits.
The response from Uttarakhand, however, could not be more different. The BJP-ruled state has defended the amendments, saying that matters relating to the rights and healthcare needs of transgender people are influenced by "social norms and existing systems", in addition to government regulations. In its submission to the Supreme Court in August, Uttarakhand said the Centre should address the constitutional challenges to the law, but it nonetheless proceeded to defend the statute, citing precedent that it is settled law to presume the constitutionality of an "enactment made by a competent legislature".
Uttarakhand has further argued that the amended law has not caused "any denial, dilution, erosion or abridgement of the rights of transgender persons" in the state. It said the process of "identification, certification, welfare, and rehabilitation" of transgender persons has continued, suggesting that the state sees no practical disruption from the Centre's changes.
The contrasting affidavits expose a broader tension within the ruling alliance over how far the state should go in defending a law that has become a flashpoint for questions of identity, dignity and constitutional rights. For petitioners, the amendments represent a rollback of hard-won protections and a retreat from the principle that gender identity is self-defined. For the government, the law is framed as a safeguard against misuse of welfare systems.
With the Union government yet to answer the petitions and the court now hearing challenges from multiple sides, the case is likely to remain one of the most closely watched constitutional disputes over rights and recognition in recent years. The outcome will determine not only the legal fate of the amendments, but also the extent to which India's transgender citizens can rely on self-identification as the basis for state recognition and protection.