"Scattered Opinion": Top Court Halts High Courts' Transgender Law Proceedings

The Centre sought the clubbing of petitions pending before various high courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

15 Jun 2026, 11:09 · www.ndtv.com

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a transfer petition filed by the Central government seeking the clubbing of petitions pending before various high courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

The vacation bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana also stayed proceedings in the pending high court matters.

The Chief Justice observed that it would be preferable either for one high court to hear all the matters or for the Supreme Court itself to adjudicate them, rather than risk "scattered opinions" emerging from different forums.

The amendment Act has been challenged over the removal of the concept of "self-identification" of gender, a right that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its landmark NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) judgment.

Petitioners say the amendment mandates medical or administrative interventions for gender recognition and argue that this violates the right to dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy.

Point, Counterpoint

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that multiple petitions challenging the latest amendments were pending before several high courts while the Supreme Court was already seized of the matter.

Mehta argued that allowing parallel proceedings could result in conflicting judicial views on the validity of the law.

One of the petitioners opposing the transfer request informed the court that he had found out about it only through media reports.

The petitioner said he is a qualified doctor, and his challenge was among the most comprehensive and involved substantial medical and scientific issues.

He suggested that if consolidation was required, the matters could be heard together by a high court so that the Supreme Court would have the benefit of a considered judgment before examining the issues.

Responding to the submission, the Chief Justice of India observed that the court would benefit from the assistance of the petitioner, particularly given his medical background.

"We will definitely require your assistance. A qualified doctor will be 100 times better in this kind of matter," Justice Kant remarked.

Mehta, however, submitted that the issues raised may warrant consideration by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.

He pointed out that the NALSA judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Since several pleas challenging the amendment Act invoke principles laid down in the NALSA judgment, the matter may warrant consideration by a larger bench, he argued.

Mehta also pointed out that high courts may find it difficult to take a view contrary to the precedent set in the NALSA judgment.

Opposing the submission, the petitioner contended that the challenge was not founded on the NALSA judgment and, in fact, questioned provisions introduced through the amendment itself. He argued that the new law was not only unconstitutional but also lacked any credible medical basis.

The top court then issued notice on the Centre's transfer petition and stayed the proceedings pending before the high courts.

Show full article

Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world