SC stays high court proceedings on challenges to Transgender Amendment Act

THe sublime margaret court on mon stayed farther proceedings before quadruplet high courts hearing challenges to the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, while issuing notice on the Union government’s plea seeking transfer of all such cases to the apex court to avoid conflicting rulings on the legislation.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana passed the order on transfer petitions filed by the Centre, which has argued that identical constitutional questions arising from the 2026 amendment are already pending before the Supreme Court and should be adjudicated by a single forum.“Further proceedings before high courts shall remain stayed,” ordered the bench after issuing notice to petitioners who have challenged the law before the Rajasthan, Delhi, Karnataka and Kerala high courts.Indicating its inclination to centralise the litigation, the bench observed: “It is better that all matters are taken up either by one high court or we decide it.”The matter has now been posted for hearing in July.The order marks a significant development in the growing constitutional challenge to the amendment legislation, which has triggered litigation across the country over allegations that it dismantles the principle of self-identification of gender recognised by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in National Legal Services Authority Vs Union of India (2014).Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the constitutional validity of the same enactment was being examined simultaneously by multiple high courts even though the Supreme Court was already seized of an identical challenge.Also Read: Mind The Gap: Identity under scrutiny“This court is already seized of this issue. The petitions before the high courts challenge the constitutional validity of the 2026 Act,” Mehta submitted.The Centre’s transfer plea raised concerns it first flagged before the CJI-led bench on May 27, when it contended that parallel proceedings before different constitutional courts could result in divergent judicial pronouncements on the same law.At least four high courts are currently hearing challenges to the amendment. The Karnataka, Delhi and Kerala high courts have two petitions each pending before them, while the Rajasthan High Court is hearing a challenge filed by Nai Bhor Sanstha, an organisation working for the welfare of transgender persons.During Monday’s hearing, one of the petitioners before the Delhi High Court, Chandresh Jain, appeared before the Supreme Court and submitted that his case raises a comprehensive challenge to the legislation and demonstrates why the amendments are constitutionally unsustainable.The Supreme Court is already hearing a batch of petitions filed by transgender activists, organisations and community leaders challenging the law. On May 4, a bench headed by CJI Kant had issued notice to the Centre as well as all states and Union Territories on those petitions and indicated that the matter may eventually require consideration by a larger bench.The constitutional challenge centres on allegations that Parliament has diluted the core principle laid down in the NALSA judgment, where the Supreme Court recognised the right to self-identify one’s gender as an aspect of dignity, autonomy and personal liberty protected under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.Petitioners contend that the 2026 amendment replaces the earlier self-identification framework with a more restrictive regime dependent on medical conditions, state certification and specified socio-cultural identities.One of the principal challenges concerns the substituted definition of “transgender person” under Section 2(k) of the Act. Under the original law, a transgender person was defined broadly as “a person whose gender does not match with the gender assigned to that person at birth”.The amended provision, however, replaces that formulation with a closed set of categories linked either to membership of specified socio-cultural groups such as hijra, kinner, aravani, jogta and eunuch, or to medically diagnosable congenital variations in sex characteristics.According to the petitioners, the revised definition excludes a significant section of transgender persons who identify as transgender but do not fall within the enumerated categories and do not possess a medically diagnosable condition.The challenge also targets provisions requiring certification processes involving governmental authorities and medical scrutiny, which the petitioners argue reintroduce the very form of “medical gatekeeping” expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in NALSA.The petitions further assail amendments to the penal provisions of the law. While existing offences such as forced labour, denial of access to public places and physical or sexual abuse continue to attract relatively lighter punishments, the amended legislation introduces new offences carrying penalties ranging from 10 years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment for compelling persons through surgery or coercion to present as transgender.According to the petitioners, the legislative scheme impermissibly associates transgender presentation with criminal conduct and creates an unconstitutional distinction within the statutory framework.The amendment received presidential assent on March 30. Last month, however, the Supreme Court declined to stay its operation at the interim stage, observing that the constitutional questions raised would require detailed examination.During earlier hearings, CJI Kant had observed that the court would have to carefully balance the principle of self-identification with concerns regarding misuse of benefits reserved for transgender persons, while Justice Joymalya Bagchi had noted that Parliament remained competent to alter the legal basis of a judicial ruling, subject to constitutional limitations.The Centre, on their part, has maintained that the amendment does not prohibit voluntary gender-affirming treatment and merely seeks to regulate coercive or forced procedures.