Supreme Court Considers Transfer of Challenges to Transgender Rights Amendment Act 2026, Stays High Court Proceedings

June 15, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on petitions filed by the Central government seeking the transfer of cases pending before various High Courts that challenge the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The Court also directed that proceedings in the pending cases before the High Courts remain stayed until further orders.

A Vacation Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana heard the transfer petitions and observed that it may either transfer all the constitutional challenges to the Supreme Court for adjudication or consolidate them before a single High Court to prevent conflicting judicial decisions. The petitions currently relate to cases pending before the Rajasthan, Karnataka, Kerala, and Delhi High Courts.

Representing the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the constitutional questions raised in the challenges are closely linked to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India. He urged the Court to issue notice and indicated that he would seek referral of the matter to a larger Bench if the cases are ultimately transferred to the Supreme Court.

Mehta submitted that the issues involved have far-reaching implications in light of the NALSA ruling and emphasized that High Courts would remain bound by the precedent laid down by the Supreme Court. He suggested that a larger Bench may be required to comprehensively examine the questions raised by the 2026 amendment.

The Court also briefly heard submissions from Dr. Chandresh Jain, one of the petitioners who has challenged the amendment before the Delhi High Court. Jain contended that the 2026 amendment undermines the principles established in the NALSA judgment, which recognized self-identification of gender as a fundamental right protected under the Constitution. He further argued that several provisions introduced through the amendment lack any scientific or medical basis, rendering them unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court will now consider the responses of the parties before deciding whether the challenges should be heard by the Apex Court itself or consolidated before a single High Court for uniform adjudication.