Supreme Court stays High Court proceedings on challenges to new transgender law

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 15, 2026) stayed further proceedings before four High Courts hearing challenges to the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, while issuing notice on the Union government’s plea seeking transfer of all pending cases to the apex court to prevent conflicting decisions on the law.

Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana that several High Courts were hearing challenges to the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment, despite a similar challenge already being pending before the apex court.

“This court is already seized of this issue. The petitions before the High Courts challenge the constitutional validity of the 2026 Act,” Mr. Mehta submitted.

Acceding to the Centre’s request that challenges to the constitutional validity of the law be heard by a single judicial forum, the Bench issued notice on the transfer petition and stayed further proceedings before the Rajasthan, Delhi, Karnataka and Kerala High Courts.

“Further proceedings before the High Courts shall remain stayed,” the Bench directed.

The Bench also indicated that it may either transfer all the petitions to the Supreme Court or consolidate them and assign them to a single High Court.

“It is better that all matters are taken up either by one high court or we ourselves decide it. So that there is no scattered opinion” the Chief Justice said.

The matter will now be taken up in July after the court resumes regular functioning following its partial working days.

Earlier, on May 27, the Centre had reiterated its concern that the High Courts may pre-empt the apex court by separately taking up the petitions pending before them and passing orders on the validity of the law. Mr. Mehta had said that the apex court should transfer the cases pending before these High Courts to itself in order to avoid “divergent views” on the same Act.

‘Three-judge Bench’

On Monday, Chandresh Jain, one of the petitioners before the Delhi High Court, appeared before the top court and submitted that his petition raises a “comprehensive challenge” to the legislation and sets out why the amendments are constitutionally untenable. The Bench observed that if the petitions are transferred to the apex court, it would like to have his assistance in the matter.

The petitioners have argued that the 2026 amendments undermine the 2014 NALSA judgment, which held that the right to self-identity is a fundamental right. The judgment recognised that gender identity is determined by the individual and not by biology, birth assignment or State verification. They have contended that Section 3 of the 2026 Act omits the right to self-perceived gender identity.

The Centre, however, has maintained that the amendment does not prohibit voluntary gender-affirming treatment and merely seeks to regulate coercive or forced procedures.

Mr. Mehta also submitted that if the petitions are transferred to the Supreme Court, they should be placed before a three-judge Bench. He pointed out that the challenge to the 2026 amendment is founded largely on the 2014 NALSA judgment, which was delivered by a two-judge Bench.

“There is one judgment of NALSA… I can persuade Your Lordships to put it before a three-judge Bench. High Courts may find it difficult to take a view contrary to that,” he said.

Last month, the Supreme Court had declined to stay the operation of the law at the interim stage, observing that the constitutional questions raised would require detailed examination. The Chief Justice had also flagged what he described as the “danger” of persons masquerading as transgender to avail welfare benefits and reservations in government employment.

“Does it not pose a danger that in a country of 140-crore population, there are people who would masquerade this qualification only for grabbing reservation or privileges which are actually meant for those who are unfortunately, because of their physical or biological circumstances…. Will it not deprive them of benefits?” the Chief Justice had asked.