The Supreme Court issued notice on Centre’s plea seeking transfer of petitions challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 from various High Courts. The Court stayed proceedings and indicated it may hear the constitutional challenge.
The Supreme Court issued notice on the Centre’s plea seeking the transfer of all petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 that were pending before different High Courts, and it stayed further proceedings in those cases.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana indicated that the Supreme Court may examine the constitutional challenge itself to prevent conflicting rulings from various High Courts.
The matter came up on a transfer petition filed by the Union of India, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who argued that multiple challenges to the Amendment Act were pending across the country, while the Supreme Court was already seized of the question of the constitutional validity of a Central legislation.
Mehta submitted,
“Constitutional validity of a Central Act is challenged, of which Your Lordships are seized,”
During the hearing, one of the petitioners, whose case was pending before a High Court, opposed the transfer plea and told the Bench that his petition was the “most comprehensive” and that he was a qualified doctor. Responding, the Chief Justice remarked, “We will definitely require your assistance.”
The Court, however, observed that it would be preferable for all challenges to be heard together rather than allowing parallel proceedings in different High Courts to continue.
The CJI said,
“Better it is that all the matters are taken up. Either we will give it to one High Court or we ourselves will decide instead of having a scattered opinion,”
Solicitor General Mehta also referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the NALSA case and urged the Court to issue notice on the transfer petition. He contended that High Courts might find it difficult to take a view that could diverge from the principles laid down in the earlier decision.
Mehta submitted,
“There is one judgment of NALSA, so kindly issue notice. I can persuade Your Lordships to put it before a three-judge Bench. High Courts may find it difficult to take a view contrary to that,”
Opposing the Centre’s stand, counsel appearing for one of the petitioners argued that the challenge to the Amendment Act did not rest solely on the NALSA judgment.
The counsel contended,
“There is nothing which is really on the basis of the NALSA judgment. The amendment is not only unconstitutional but also there is no medical basis,”
After hearing the parties, the Bench issued notice on the transfer petition. In its interim order, it directed that all proceedings pending before various High Courts challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 shall remain stayed.
The Court ordered,
“Meanwhile, further proceedings in the High Courts shall remain stayed,”
Last month, a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant had issued notice in petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act, contending that the law dismantles the fundamental right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender as recognised in the landmark NALSA judgment. When asked to stay the operation of the legislation at the interim stage, CJI Surya Kant had made it clear that “there was no question of staying anything.”
The petition, filed under Article 32 by Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, argues that the amendment causes “irreparable constitutional injury” by violating rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21. It raises a central constitutional issue: whether the State can define a person’s gender identity instead of respecting the individual’s self-perception. The petitioners include a prominent transgender rights activist who was part of the original litigation that led to the 2014 NALSA judgment, as well as a corporate leader and a member of the National Council for Transgender Persons.
The challenge centres on the amended definition of “transgender person.” The petition contends that the new provision replaces the earlier standard of self-identification with a restrictive model based on biological conditions and socio-cultural categories. It further claims that this change effectively excludes individuals who do not fall within specified categories such as hijra or intersex persons, thereby “erasing” a large segment of the transgender community.
The plea also criticises a clause that, according to the petitioners, includes within the definition persons allegedly pushed into transgender identity through coercive practices. They argue that this wrongly mixes victims of abuse with individuals who identify as transgender, which they say is stigmatizing and constitutionally unsustainable.
Another key grievance, the petition states, is the deletion of statutory recognition of the right to “self-perceived gender identity,” which was incorporated into the 2019 law after the NALSA ruling. The petition argues that this omission amounts to legislative abrogation of a fundamental right stating that Parliament cannot override a constitutional guarantee upheld by the Supreme Court through ordinary legislation.
It also argues that a proviso excluding “self-perceived sexual identities” directly clashes with constitutional jurisprudence. The petition further claims that the retrospective nature of that exclusion could threaten to unsettle identities already recognised under the earlier framework.
In addition, the petition challenges the amended law’s requirement for certification by a medical board before recognition as a transgender person. It submits that this reinstates medical gatekeeping that the Supreme Court had expressly rejected in 2014.
Case Title: Union of India v. Nai Bhor Sanstha & Ors.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE