SC mulls hearing all pleas against Transgender Amendment Act to avoid conflicting views
New Delhi, June 15
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a plea filed by the Centre seeking transfer of petitions pending before various High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons Amendment Act, 2026.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana sought responses from the petitioners who have challenged the amended law before different High Courts, including the Delhi, Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Kerala High Courts.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, submitted that the constitutional validity of a Central legislation is under challenge before multiple High Courts, even as related proceedings are already pending before the apex court.
At this, the CJI-headed Bench observed that the top court would either hear all the matters itself or entrust them to a single High Court for adjudication to avoid conflicting views on the same issue.
SG Mehta, the Centre's second-highest law officer, further referred to the landmark NALSA judgment and submitted that High Courts may find it difficult to take a view contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, suggesting that the issue may ultimately require consideration by a larger Bench.
Opposing the Centre's plea, counsel appearing for one of the petitioners contended that the challenge to the amended law does not solely arise from the NALSA ruling and argued that the legislation is "not only unconstitutional but also has no medical basis".
After hearing the submissions, the apex court issued notice and stayed further proceedings in the matters pending before the Rajasthan, Karnataka, Kerala, and Delhi High Courts.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 3.
The Centre had earlier moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of all petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment act, arguing that multiple proceedings before different High Courts could result in conflicting judgments on identical constitutional questions.
Last month, Solicitor General Mehta had mentioned the transfer petition before the apex court, urging an early hearing and highlighting that similar challenges were pending before several High Courts. At that stage, CJI Surya Kant had observed that divergent judicial opinions from different High Courts may sometimes be beneficial, while indicating that the request for urgent listing would be considered.
The transfer plea comes amid a series of petitions filed before various High Courts and the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the amended law.
Earlier, the apex court had issued notice on a petition challenging the amendment and directed that the matter be placed before a three-judge Bench to be constituted by the CJI.
The petitioners have contended that the amendment dilutes the principle of self-identification of gender recognised by the Supreme Court in the landmark NALSA judgment and introduces a framework of medical certification and state-controlled verification of gender identity.
The Delhi High Court had earlier issued notice to the Centre on a PIL challenging the amended legislation, while similar petitions are pending before the Rajasthan, Karnataka and Kerala High Courts. The petitioners have argued that the amendments violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution by subjecting gender identity to official scrutiny and undermining the right to self-perceived identity.
— IANS
Reader Comments
I understand the need for some legal clarity, but self-identification is the basic principle accepted worldwide. 🤔 The medical certification approach is archaic and violates dignity. Let's hope the Supreme Court hears all petitions together and gives a progressive verdict like NALSA.
The government's argument about avoiding conflicting High Court decisions makes sense practically. But the real issue is whether the amendment itself is constitutional. The transfer plea might be a procedural tactic to delay or influence outcomes. We need a comprehensive, rights-based approach, not bureaucratic hurdles for trans individuals.
It's saddening to see India potentially regressing on trans rights. The medical certification requirement is humiliating and denies basic autonomy. I hope the CJI-led bench prioritizes this and upholds the spirit of NALSA. The trans community deserves respect, not state scrutiny over their identity.
Justice delayed is justice denied. The trans community has been waiting for years for proper recognition. This amendment is literally unconstitutional—diluting self-identification and imposing medical gatekeeping. The courts must act fast and rule for equality, not create more hurdles.
While I support trans rights, I think some regulation around gender identity changes could prevent misuse, like for fraud. But the current medical certification system is excessive. A middle path—maybe a simple affidavit-based process with penalties for false claims—would be more practical while protecting rights. Let's debate constructively.
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.