The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a petition filed by the Central government, which seeks to centralize legal challenges to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, by transferring them from various High Courts to the Supreme Court. This request was presented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who urged for an expedited hearing of the transfer petition before the Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
During the session, SG Mehta proposed that proceedings in the High Courts be put on hold until the Supreme Court could take up the transfer petition. “We have filed transfer petitions to bring the challenges to the Transgender Amendment Act to this Court. Could the transfer petition be scheduled for Friday? If a notice is issued, we can ask the High Courts to wait,” Mehta stated.
In response, CJI Kant noted the potential benefits of having parallel proceedings in the High Courts, suggesting that diverse perspectives could be advantageous. “Sometimes, we can have the advantage of High Court views also,” remarked CJI Kant. Nonetheless, SG Mehta voiced concerns about the possibility of conflicting judgments from different High Courts, highlighting the complexity of the issue. “There are more than one High Court. There may be divergent views,” he pointed out.
The Bench took these submissions into consideration and indicated that the request would be duly reviewed. “We will see,” commented CJI Kant.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, which was signed into law on March 31, introduces notable changes to the 2019 legislation that governs the recognition and protection of transgender individuals. Key amendments include a revised definition of a “transgender person” and enhanced legal measures to address serious offenses, such as forced gender identity and bodily harm.
More Read
This legislative update has faced backlash from LGBTQIA+ organizations and other advocates, who argue that the certification requirement violates individual dignity, autonomy, and privacy rights. Critics contend that it contradicts the Supreme Court’s decision in the landmark case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, which affirmed the right to self-identify one’s gender.
Several petitions challenging the Amendment Act are currently pending in the Delhi High Court, Kerala High Court, and now potentially in the Supreme Court, as stakeholders continue to debate the implications of the law.
