SC stays proceedings before HCs on pleas challenging transgender law
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed further proceedings before the high courts on petitions challenging the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana agreed to hear the Centre’s petition seeking to consolidate and transfer all pending pleas challenging the Act from various high courts to the apex court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the bench that the issue relates to constitutional validity of a central Act.
“Issue notice,” the bench said, adding, “further proceedings before the high courts shall remain stayed”. On May 27, Mehta had mentioned the matter before the top court and sought an urgent listing of the transfer petitions.
The top law officer had said that since multiple high courts were currently seized of the matter, there was a significant risk of “divergent views” and conflicting judicial rulings on the validity of the federal legislation.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, has come under intense legal scrutiny from human rights activists and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
The primary bone of contention is the removal of the concept of “self-identification” of gender, a right previously upheld by the Supreme Court in its landmark NALSA judgment.
The 2026 Amendment reportedly mandates medical or administrative interventions for gender recognition, which the petitioners argue violates the right to dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy.
On May 4, the apex court had sought responses from the Centre and others on separate pleas challenging the validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.
On March 25, Parliament passed a bill to amend the law on the protection and rights of transgender persons, which excludes social orientations from the ambit of the statute. It received the President’s assent on March 30.
The Act provides for graded punishment based on the gravity of harm inflicted on such people.
The petitioners challenging the validity of the Act have referred to the apex court’s 2014 judgement, which had upheld the transgender persons’ right to decide their self-identified gender.
