Abstract:
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, is widely described as a regression, a reversal of the rights framework established in National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (2014). This article concurs, but contends the regression has a distinct character that existing commentary has not been fully articulated. Drawing on B.R. Ambedkar's distinction between constitutional morality and social morality, it argues that the Amendment does not merely remove rights, it reinstates social morality as the governing principle of legal recognition, substituting the state's authorisation for the individual's selfidentification. The Supreme Court hearing of May 2026 makes this visible in a further and troubling way: social morality is already operating as a prior condition of judicial cognition, before constitutional argument is even heard. The piece reads the Amendment and the hearing through that diagnostic.
