SC stays HC cases against Transgender Rights Amendment Act

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed proceedings in various high courts hearing challenges to the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, while agreeing to consider the Centre's request to consolidate all related petitions before the apex court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice V. Mohana issued notice on the Centre's transfer petition and directed that no further proceedings should continue before high courts until the matter is taken up by the Supreme Court.

Appearing for the Union government, solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued that the challenges concern the validity of a central legislation and should therefore be heard by a single forum to avoid conflicting judicial outcomes.

The Centre had earlier urged the apex court to urgently hear the transfer petitions, contending that multiple high courts examining the same law simultaneously could result in divergent rulings on questions of constitutional interpretation.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, has attracted legal challenges from rights groups, activists and members of the LGBTQ+ community, who argue that certain provisions undermine protections recognised by earlier Supreme Court judgments.

At the centre of the dispute is the legislation's treatment of gender recognition. Petitioners contend that the amendments dilute the principle of self-identification, which was recognised by the Supreme Court in its landmark 2014 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment.

According to the petitions, the amended law introduces requirements that could subject gender recognition to medical or administrative scrutiny, raising concerns over privacy, dignity, bodily autonomy and equality before the law.

The Supreme Court had earlier, on 4 May, sought responses from the Centre and other parties on separate petitions challenging the validity of the legislation.

The amendment was passed by Parliament in March and subsequently received Presidential assent later that month. Among its provisions are revised definitions and a framework for graded punishments based on the severity of offences committed against transgender persons.

Critics of the legislation maintain that some of the amendments are inconsistent with constitutional protections and established judicial precedents. They have relied heavily on the NALSA ruling, which affirmed the right of transgender persons to determine and express their self-identified gender without external approval.

With PTI inputs