The Supreme Court, on Monday, June 15, stayed further proceedings pending before the Rajasthan, Delhi, Karnataka and Kerala High Courts in petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, and issued a notice on the Union government’s plea seeking transfer of all such cases to a single forum.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana passed the interim order while hearing a transfer petition filed by the Union government, which argued that parallel proceedings before multiple High Courts could result in conflicting decisions on the validity of a Central legislation.
Appearing for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Supreme Court was already seized of petitions challenging the 2026 amendment and that several High Courts were simultaneously examining the same constitutional issues.
Accepting the Union government’s request for a consolidated hearing, the Bench directed that further proceedings pending before the High Courts be stayed. The court indicated that it may either transfer all pending petitions to the Supreme Court or consolidate them before a single High Court.
“It is better that all matters are taken up either by one high court or we ourselves decide it. So that there is no scattered opinion,” the Chief Justice observed.
The transfer petitions relate to cases pending before the High Courts of Rajasthan, Delhi, Karnataka, and Kerala. The Union government moved the Supreme Court on May 27, seeking the transfer of the matters, expressing concern over possible “divergent views” from different High Courts on the same legislation.
During the hearing, Delhi High Court petitioner Dr Chandresh Jain opposed the transfer plea and submitted that his challenge raised comprehensive constitutional, medical and scientific issues concerning the legislation. He argued that the amendment was not only unconstitutional but also lacked a medical basis.
The Bench, however, indicated that it would welcome his assistance if the cases were ultimately heard by the apex court. “We will definitely require your assistance,” the Chief Justice told the petitioner. Justice Kant remarked, “A qualified doctor will be 100 times better in this kind of matter.”
The constitutional challenge to the amendment centres on allegations that it dilutes the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender, a right recognised by the Supreme Court in its landmark 2014 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment.
Petitioners have argued that the 2026 amendments undermine the NALSA ruling by removing statutory recognition of “self-perceived gender identity”. They contend that Section 3 of the amended law omits the right to self-perceived gender identity and introduces provisions that are inconsistent with the constitutional principles laid down in NALSA.
The Union has defended the amendment, maintaining that it does not prohibit voluntary gender-affirming treatment and merely seeks to regulate coercive or forced procedures.
Last month, the Supreme Court issued notice on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment but declined to stay the operation of the law at the interim stage, holding that the issues raised required detailed examination.
The matter is expected to be taken up in July after the court resumes regular functioning.