The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on the Central government’s plea seeking transfer and consolidation of all pending challenges to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, from various High Courts to the Delhi High Court for adjudication, while indicating that it may itself examine the constitutional validity of the law in order to avoid “scattered opinions” emerging from different High Courts.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana issued notice to the petitioners who have challenged the amended law before various High Courts and sought their response to the Union government’s plea that all such cases be heard together, preferably by the Delhi High Court.
The Centre submitted that petitions challenging the legislation are presently pending before different High Courts, including Delhi, Kerala and Karnataka, raising the possibility of conflicting judicial pronouncements on identical constitutional questions.
During the hearing, the Bench indicated that it may itself examine the issue to avoid “scattered opinion” emerging from different High Courts
A little over a month, the Supreme Court, on May 4, had issued notice to the Union government and all States on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. At that stage, however, the Court declined to stay the operation of the law, noting that the amendment had not yet been notified.
The challenge centres primarily on the amendment’s departure from the principle of self-identification recognised by the Supreme Court in its landmark April 15, 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India. In that judgment, the Court had upheld the right of transgender persons to determine their self-identified gender and directed governments to accord legal recognition to such identity.
Appearing for some of the petitioners on May 4, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the amended law effectively replaces self-identification with medical certification and evaluation, thereby undermining the rights recognised in April 15, 2014 NALSA judgment.
According to Singhvi, the amendment prevents individuals from asserting their gender identity without medical approval and could adversely affect those undergoing gender-affirming treatment.
“You cannot nullify the judgment. The basis can be removed. NALSA judgment is nullified, and basis removal is not attempted,” Singhvi had submitted.
The Bench, however, questioned whether unrestricted self-identification could be susceptible to misuse, including by persons falsely claiming transgender status to secure reservations or other benefits. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the amendment appeared to alter the legal foundation on which NALSA was decided.
“When you say NALSA says self-identification is a matter of dignity, we can examine the amendment in the light of Article 21. This amendment changed the substratum of the law on which NALSA examined it. So, instead of self-determination, there is a medical evaluation,” Justice Bagchi remarked.
The Court nevertheless declined to grant interim relief and said the validity of the legislation would be examined in due course.
The amendment, which received Presidential assent on March 31, 2026, introduces significant changes to the legal framework governing transgender rights. It revises the definition of a “transgender person”, introduces institutional and procedural mechanisms for implementation, provides for consequential changes in official documents and restructures the National Council for Transgender Persons through a region-based representation model.
The amended law also strengthens penal provisions by creating specific offences and enhanced punishments for grave acts such as abduction, forced bodily harm, mutilation, emasculation, castration, coercive hormone or chemical alteration procedures, and forced gender identity for exploitation.
Critics of the law contend that the certification-based framework infringes dignity, privacy and autonomy guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, while the Union government maintains that the amendments seek to bring clarity to the statutory framework and ensure that benefits reach those facing genuine social exclusion and vulnerability.