SC stays High Court Hearings On Pleas Challenging Transgender Rights Amendment Act
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned hearings before high courts on petitions challenging the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana agreed to hear the Centre’s petition seeking to consolidate all pending pleas challenging the Act from various high courts and transfer them to the top court.
Speaking on behalf of the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the issue was about the constitutional validity of a central law. “Issue notice,” the bench said, adding: “Other cases before the high courts will continue to be stayed.” Mehta had submitted the issue to the top court on May 27 and requested that the transfer petitions be listed immediately.
The senior legal official said there was a risk of “divergent views” and conflicting judicial decisions on the validity of federal legislation, as multiple high courts were seized on the issue.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 has come under intense legal scrutiny from human rights activists and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
The root cause of the controversy is the elimination of the concept of “self-identification” of gender, a right previously upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark NALSA judgment.
The 2026 Amendment reportedly mandates medical or administrative interventions in gender recognition that petitioners argue violate their rights to dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy.
On May 4, the top court had sought response from the Center and others on separate pleas challenging the validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.
On March 25, Parliament adopted a bill to amend the law on the protection and rights of transgender people, which excludes social orientations from the scope of the law. It received the President’s approval on March 30.
The law provides for gradual punishment according to the severity of the damage caused to these people. Challenging the validity of the law, the petitioners cited the top court’s 2014 decision that upheld the right of transgender people to decide the gender with which they identify.
