The Supreme Court has immediately stayed the hearing of petitions challenging the new Transgender Persons (Persons) Act 2026 in four different high courts. Following the central government’s demand, all these cases are now likely to be heard in a single court to avoid any contradictory decisions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued a significant order regarding the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. On Monday, June 15, the apex court immediately stayed proceedings in four different high courts challenging the law.
The central government had requested the transfer of all pending petitions in this matter to the Supreme Court to avoid conflicting decisions from different courts on the same law. A bench comprising Chief Justice (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana issued notice on the central government’s transfer petition and stayed the ongoing hearings in the Rajasthan, Delhi, Karnataka, and Kerala high courts.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Government of India, informed the court that the Supreme Court is already hearing the case. Furthermore, several other High Courts are also challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment.
Accepting this request, the Chief Justice stated that it would be better if all the cases were heard by either a single High Court or the Supreme Court itself delivered its final verdict. The court believed this would avoid scattered and divergent judicial opinions.
The next hearing in the case will take place in July, when the court resumes regular work after its partial working period.
Earlier, on May 27, the Central Government had expressed concern that hearings in different courts could lead to contradictory judgments on the validity of the law. Mr. Mehta clarified that the Supreme Court should convene these cases to avoid divergent opinions on the same act.
During Monday’s hearing, Chandresh Jain, a petitioner from the Delhi High Court, also appeared before the Supreme Court. They argued that their petition comprehensively challenges the new law and establishes why the amendments are constitutionally unsound. The bench stated that if the cases are transferred to the Supreme Court, the court would be happy to seek Mr. Jain’s assistance in this matter.
The petitioners’ main argument is that the 2026 amendment undermines the landmark 2014 NALSA judgment, which recognized the right to self-determination as a fundamental right. According to the petitioners, Section 3 of the 2026 Act eliminates the right to self-perceived gender identity and leaves gender determination to biology or state verification.
On the other hand, the central government maintains its position. The government maintains that the amendment does not prohibit voluntary gender-affirming treatments. Its primary purpose is only to regulate procedures performed under coercion or pressure.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also requested the court to transfer the petitions to the Supreme Court before a three-judge bench. He pointed out that the current challenge is primarily based on the 2014 NALSA decision, delivered by a two-judge bench. It may be difficult for high courts to take a view contrary to that decision.
Just last month, the Supreme Court refused to stay the implementation of the new law on an interim basis. The court then remarked that the constitutional questions raised by it require detailed and in-depth examination.
At that time, the Chief Justice also expressed a serious concern. He stated that in a country with a population of 1.4 billion, there could be a threat from individuals who may pretend to be transgender simply to benefit from reservations in government jobs or other welfare schemes.
The Chief Justice questioned whether such fraud would not deprive those who are truly entitled to these benefits due to their physical or biological conditions.
Rajan Chaudhary
Courtesy: Hindi News