They were mandated to register with local authorities and faced restrictions on acting as guardians for minors, executing gifts or wills, and adopting sons, with violations carrying the risk of imprisonment.

[6] Relying on the precedent set by the case National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014), wherein non-binary gender identities were legally recognized, and the fundamental rights of intersex, non-gender binary, and transgender individuals were upheld under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, the Petitioners argue against the constitutionality of Section 36A of the Karnataka Police Act.

[9][11] This omission holds particular significance, given that the binding precedent cited by the petitioners, National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014), underscored the adverse impact of the Criminal Tribes Act on intersex, non-gender binary, and transgender individuals.

[3] Ramya Jawahar, a Human Rights lawyer, highlighted that merely substituting the term 'eunuch' will not rectify the underlying problematic nature of Section 36A, which poses harm to the transgender community.

[1][4] Gowthaman Ranganathan, a lawyer specializing in Human Rights and Comparative Constitutional Law, stated that he advocates for the full repeal of Section 36A, which essentially resembles an extension of the abolished Criminal Tribes Act of 1873.

He noted that the revisions made are of a minor nature and anything less than a complete repeal remains entirely unacceptable because it constitutes a violation of transgender rights and the principle of equality.

[1] Jayna Kothari and Diksha Sanyal acknowledged that the amendment merely creates a superficially neutral appearance for the provision, while retaining the oppressive framework of the law.

Nevertheless, they view this as a significant milestone for transgender rights, marking the first instance of legislative amendment of a legal provision directed against sexual minorities in India.