NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to petitioners in various High Courts after hearing the Centre’s plea to transfer all petitions challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) (Amendment) Act, 2026, to the apex court.
A two-judge partial working days bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana, also stayed proceedings in the High Courts while issuing notices to the respondents, who are petitioners in the respective High Courts.
The Centre had moved the Supreme Court on May 27, seeking the transfer and clubbing of all petitions challenging the 2026 amendment from various High Courts.
During Monday’s hearing, the bench indicated that it may either transfer the cases pending before different High Courts to the Supreme Court or club them and assign them to a particular High Court for adjudication.
The petitions sought to transfer cases pending in the Rajasthan, Karnataka, Kerala and Delhi High Courts.
Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that if the petitions are transferred to the Supreme Court, they should be placed before a three-judge bench. He noted that the 2014 NALSA judgment, which forms the basis of many challenges to the amendment, was delivered by a two-judge bench.
“There is one judgment of NALSA, so kindly issue notice. I can persuade your lordships to put it before a three-judge bench for further hearing. High Courts may find it difficult to take a view contrary to that,” Mehta submitted.
Lawyer Chandresh Jain, one of the petitioners before the Delhi High Court, argued that the 2026 amendment is unconstitutional because it undermines the 2014 NALSA judgment, which recognised self-identification of gender as a fundamental right. He also contended that the amendment lacks a medical basis.
Earlier, a bench led by CJI Kant had issued notices to the Union government, all states and Union Territories on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) (Amendment) Act, 2026.
The petitions contend that the law dilutes the fundamental right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender, a right recognised in the landmark NALSA judgment.
Among those who have approached the Supreme Court are transgender rights activist Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and others. Tripathi, who serves as Chairperson of the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP), along with council member Zainab Patel, has challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment.
The petitioners argue that the amendment, passed by Parliament in March and granted presidential assent on March 31, removes the right to self-determination of gender and causes “irreparable constitutional injury” to the fundamental rights of transgender persons under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
According to the plea, Section 4(2) of the original law explicitly recognised a transgender person’s right to self-perceived gender identity and directly reflected the NALSA ruling. Petitioners argue that deleting this provision violates Article 21 because it removes statutory protection for a fundamental right recognised by the Supreme Court.
The plea further criticises what it describes as medical, psychiatric and bureaucratic gatekeeping in gender recognition, arguing that the state cannot impose such conditions on a person’s gender identity. It also invokes the right to privacy, including control over the disclosure of personal and medical information.
Petitioners have also challenged the removal of protections under Section 7(3), arguing that it undermines safeguards for certificate holders. They contend that Sections 18(e) to 18(h) stigmatise transgender expression by framing it within criminal offences rather than focusing solely on coercive conduct.
The plea further argues that the law arbitrarily assigns greater penalties for trafficking offences than for sexual and physical abuse of transgender persons, thereby undervaluing their bodily integrity. It also points to the continued non-implementation of reservation measures for transgender persons directed in the NALSA judgment.
A key challenge concerns the amendment’s revised definition of “transgender person” under Section 2(k). Petitioners argue that the original definition, which referred to a person whose gender does not match the gender assigned at birth, reflected the NALSA principle that gender identity is determined by the individual rather than biology, birth assignment or state verification.
The amendment has faced criticism from opposition parties and members of the LGBTQIA+ community. Critics argue that affected communities were not adequately consulted before the Bill was introduced in Parliament.
Two members of the National Council for Transgender Persons - Kalki Subramaniam and Rituparna Neog - resigned from the council on the day the Rajya Sabha passed the Bill.
