NEW DELHI, May 27: The Central Government on Wednesday approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer and consolidation of all petitions pending before various high courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) (Amendment) Act, 2026.
Appearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested urgent listing of the transfer petitions later this week.
The Centre informed the apex court that several petitions questioning the amended legislation are currently being heard in different high courts across the country. According to the government, parallel proceedings may result in contradictory judicial interpretations on the same law.
The Solicitor General argued that a unified hearing before the Supreme Court would ensure consistency and judicial clarity on issues involving a central statute. He also submitted that once notices are issued by the apex court, the Union Government could request high courts to pause further hearings in related matters.
However, the Chief Justice indicated that opinions expressed by constitutional courts in states often assist the Supreme Court in examining complex legal questions. The bench observed that views emerging from high courts can provide valuable legal reasoning before the matter reaches final adjudication at the national level.
Despite the Centre reiterating concerns over conflicting verdicts, the bench stated that it would consider the request for transfer.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) (Amendment) Act, 2026, has sparked strong opposition from civil rights groups, activists and members of the LGBTQ+ community. Critics argue that some of the amended provisions dilute protections earlier recognised by judicial precedents.
One of the major concerns raised in the petitions relates to the removal of self-identification as the basis for legal gender recognition. Petitioners contend that the amended framework introduces medical or administrative requirements that undermine individual autonomy and personal liberty.
Legal experts challenging the law have cited the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the NALSA Judgment, which recognised the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender without compulsory medical procedures.
Activists maintain that the amended law violates constitutional guarantees related to equality, dignity, privacy and bodily autonomy. Several organisations have demanded reconsideration of the provisions, arguing that they impose barriers on transgender individuals seeking official recognition of their identity.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had already issued notices to the Union Government on separate petitions filed directly before the apex court challenging the constitutional validity of the legislation.
The matter is expected to come up for further consideration in the coming days amid growing national debate over transgender rights and constitutional protections.