Centre fears ‘divergence of views’ among High Courts on new transgender law; asks SC to transfer cases to itself

The Center on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, urged the Supreme Court to transfer petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, from nearly four different High Courts to the apex court.

Speaking before the delegation headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Solicitor General Tishar Mehta said that the Supreme Court will return to work after summer vacation in the first week of June.

The Supreme Court has already taken up a large number of petitions challenging the 2026 Act, but it is only partially working through June. Speaking on behalf of the Union government, Mr. Mehta said that the High Courts can bypass the top court by deciding on individual petitions before them.

Mr. Mehta said the apex court should shift pending cases in these High Courts to itself to avoid “divergent views” on the same Act.

The senior legal official asked the Chief Justice to list the Union government’s request for transfer of these petitions to it on May 29.

“We’ll see,” Chief Justice Kant said in response.

In petitions in the high court, he criticized the controversial 2026 law that eliminated the right to personal identity. The 2026 Act requires a government-appointed medical panel to give a positive recommendation for a District Magistrate to certify a person as a transgender person.

The petitioners, including activists like Laxminarayan Tripathi and others, said the Act disregards transgender identity as a “freely chosen genuine human identity”.

They argued that the requirement for a medical certificate for gender recognition violated the rights of transgender people and amounted to “medical surveillance” by the State.

The government opposed this, saying that the purpose of the Act was to ensure that deserving people from the community received benefits. He said that forced gender change is considered a crime.

Transgender Persons Amendment Bill and the identity issue

The petitioners emphasized that the Act has brought an abrupt halt to ongoing gender reassignment therapies and treatment, leaving many in the society in a difficult situation.

The petitions argue that the 2026 amendments pull the rug out from under the 2014 NALSA judgment, which declared the right to self-identity to be a fundamental right.

It held that identity is determined by the individual and not through biology, birth assignment, or State verification. Section 3 of the 2026 Act ignored the right to self-perceived gender identity.