Supreme Court Stays All High Court Cases Against Transgender Amendment Act 2026; Will Hear Matter Itself

The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana indicated that the Supreme Court may itself examine the constitutional challenge to avoid conflicting decisions from different High Courts.

The matter was taken up on a transfer petition filed by the Union Government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who submitted that multiple challenges to the Amendment Act were pending across the country while the constitutional validity of a Central legislation was already engaging the attention of the Supreme Court.

“Constitutional validity of a Central Act is challenged, of which Your Lordships are seized,” Mehta submitted.

During the hearing, one of the petitioners whose challenge is pending before a High Court sought to oppose the transfer plea, telling the Bench that his petition was the “most comprehensive” and adding that he was a qualified doctor.

Responding, the Chief Justice remarked, “We will definitely require your assistance.”

The Court, however, observed that it would be preferable for all challenges to be heard together rather than allowing parallel proceedings to continue in different High Courts.

“Better it is that all the matters are taken up. Either we will give it to one High Court or we ourselves will decide instead of having a scattered opinion,” the CJI said.

Solicitor General Mehta further referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the NALSA case and urged the Court to issue notice on the transfer petition. He argued that High Courts may face difficulty in taking a view that could potentially diverge from the principles laid down in the earlier judgment.

“There is one judgment of NALSA, so kindly issue notice. 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,” Mehta submitted.

Opposing the Centre’s stand, counsel appearing for one of the petitioners argued that the challenge to the Amendment Act did not solely turn on the NALSA judgment.

“There is nothing which is really on the basis of the NALSA judgment. The amendment is not only unconstitutional but also there is no medical basis,” counsel contended.

After hearing the parties, the Bench issued notice on the transfer petition.

In its interim order, the Court directed that all proceedings pending before various High Courts challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, shall remain stayed. “Meanwhile, further proceedings in the High Courts shall remain stayed,” the Court ordered.

Last month, a CJI Surya Kant led bench of the Supreme Court had issued notice in petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, contending that the law dismantles the fundamental right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender as recognised in the landmark NALSA judgment.

On a request to stay the legislation in the interim being made, CJI Surya Kant made it clear that "there was no question of staying anything".

Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition by Laxmi Narayan Tripathi argues that the amendment inflicts “irreparable constitutional injury” by violating rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. It raises a core constitutional question: whether the State can legally define a person’s gender identity in place of their self-perception.

The petitioners include a prominent transgender rights activist who was part of the original litigation leading to the 2014 NALSA judgment, and a corporate leader and member of the National Council for Transgender Persons. They argue that the amendment represents a direct legislative override of binding constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court. At the heart of the challenge is the amended definition of “transgender person.” The petition contends that the new provision replaces the earlier self-identification standard with a restrictive framework based on biological conditions and socio-cultural categories.

According to the plea, this shift effectively excludes individuals who do not fall within specified categories such as hijra or intersex persons, thereby “erasing” a large section of the transgender community. The petition also criticises a provision that includes within the definition persons allegedly forced into transgender identity through coercive practices, arguing that it wrongly conflates victims of abuse with individuals who identify as transgender. This, the petition states, is both stigmatizing and constitutionally untenable. A key grievance is the deletion of the statutory recognition of the right to “self-perceived gender identity,” which was explicitly incorporated in the 2019 law following the NALSA ruling.

The petition argues that this omission amounts to legislative abrogation of a fundamental right. It asserts that Parliament cannot override a constitutional guarantee affirmed by the Supreme Court through ordinary legislation.

Further, a proviso excluding “self-perceived sexual identities” from the scope of the definition is described as a “direct collision” with constitutional jurisprudence. The retrospective nature of this exclusion, the petition adds, threatens to invalidate identities already recognised under the earlier framework. The amended law’s requirement for certification by a medical board before recognition as a transgender person has also been challenged. The petition argues that this reintroduces medical gatekeeping, which the Supreme Court had expressly rejected in 2014.

Case Title: Union of India v. Nai Bhor Sanstha & Ors.