SC stays HC proceedings against Transgender Act

SC Halts High Court Cases Challenging Transgender Act

SC stays HC proceedings against Transgender – On Monday, the Supreme Court imposed a stay on ongoing proceedings in four high courts that were reviewing the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The court also issued notice to the Union government, requesting its response to the proposal of transferring all such cases to the apex court to prevent conflicting judgments on the legislation.

Centralization of Legal Disputes

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana issued the order after considering transfer petitions filed by the Centre. These petitions argue that similar constitutional questions regarding the 2026 amendment are already being addressed by the Supreme Court, and a unified decision is necessary to avoid disparities in legal interpretations.

“Proceedings in the high courts will be suspended until further notice,” stated the bench, emphasizing the need for a centralized approach to resolve the legal dispute.

Impact of the Order

The Supreme Court’s intervention marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle over the amendment. The legislation has drawn widespread criticism for potentially undermining the self-identification principle established in the landmark National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) case of 2014, which affirmed gender autonomy as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

The Centre had previously raised concerns about parallel proceedings before different high courts, which could lead to varied rulings on the same law. This issue was highlighted during a hearing on May 27, when the government argued that inconsistent judicial outcomes might arise if multiple courts handle the same challenge.

Transgender Persons Act Under Scrutiny

Currently, four high courts are examining petitions against the amendment. The Karnataka, Delhi, and Kerala High Courts have two cases each, while the Rajasthan High Court is reviewing a challenge from Nai Bhor Sanstha, an organization advocating for transgender rights. During Monday’s hearing, Chandresh Jain, a petitioner from Delhi, appeared before the Supreme Court and asserted that his case presents a broad challenge to the law, arguing that the amendments are constitutionally flawed.

The Supreme Court is also set to deliberate on a separate set of petitions brought by transgender activists and community leaders. On May 4, a bench led by Chief Justice Kant issued notice to the Centre and all states, suggesting that the matter might require a larger panel for a comprehensive resolution.

Key Legal Arguments

Opponents of the amendment claim that Parliament weakened the core principle of self-identification of gender, as recognized in the NALSA judgment. They argue that the 2026 Act replaces this with a more rigid framework based on medical diagnoses, state certification, and predefined socio-cultural identities.

Under the original law, a transgender person was defined as someone whose gender at birth did not align with their self-identified gender. The amendment, however, narrows this definition to a list of categories, including hijra, kinner, aravani, jogta, and eunuch, or conditions like congenital sex variations. Petitioners assert that this change excludes many individuals who identify as transgender but do not meet these specific criteria.