The Union government on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to consider all pending appeals on the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, noting that simultaneous proceedings in the high courts could lead to conflicting judicial rulings on the same legislation.
Petitions attacking the 2026 amendment have been filed in at least four high courts, including Delhi and Rajasthan, which were also challenged before the Supreme Court for allegedly dismantling the principle of gender self-determination recognized in the landmark judgment of National Legal Services Authority (NLSA) v. Union of India (2014).
While mentioning the matter before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Wednesday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the Center had filed transfer petitions seeking to have all the Supreme Court cases lodged before the apex court.
“We have filed transfer petitions to move the challenge to the Transgender Amendment Act here in this court. Can the transfer petition be listed on Friday? If the notice is also sent, we can ask the Supreme Court to wait,” Mehta said.
The Center stressed that identical constitutional questions have emerged in several forums, and that some of the cases pending before the Supreme Courts are likely to be taken up in the first week of June after the summer vacation.
“There are four high courts, and they can take differing views. The same law is under challenge. Some of these matters are likely to come up in the first week of June when the high courts reopen,” Mehta told the bench, reiterating the government’s concern over rulings that may be inconsistent.
The ICJ noted that constitutional adjudication by higher courts could also help the Supreme Court. “It’s not one of those matters that can be decided in a day or two. If that happens, we will have the advantage of the Supreme Court,” Kant said.
Earlier, the CJI had indicated that allowing the high courts to examine the issue may have institutional value. “Sometimes we can have the advantage of a Supreme Court opinion as well,” he said.
Responding to concerns about conflicting decisions, the CJI said: “We will see.”
The development comes weeks after the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union government, states and union territories on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment.
On May 4, an ICC panel including Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi asked for responses within six weeks, and indicated that the matter would eventually come before a three-judge panel.
Opening the challenge thereafter, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the amendment effectively invalidates the fundamental upholding of the NALSA ruling, which recognized self-identification of sex as being fundamental to dignity, independence and equality under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The petitions assert that the amendment replaces the previous self-identification framework with a system based on medical evaluation and state certification, thus reintroducing the “medical gatekeeping” expressly rejected in NALSA.
The main challenge concerns the revised definition of “transgender person” under Section 2(k), which the petitioners say narrows the category by tying recognition to specific social and cultural identities and medically verifiable conditions. According to opponents, the change risks excluding people who identify as transgender but do not fall under the mentioned categories such as Hijra, Kinnar or Aravani.
Another disputed provision requires an identity certificate to be issued by a district judge on the recommendation of a medical committee. The petitioners argue that this requirement violates privacy, decision-making autonomy, and dignity by subjecting gender identity to official and medical scrutiny.
The amendment has also drawn criticism for requiring revised gender certificates after gender confirmation surgery, and for provisions that activists claim confuse transgender identity with biological or intersex conditions.
During the May 4 hearing, the Supreme Court noted that constitutional issues require careful examination. CJI Kant expressed concern about the potential for misuse of the unrestricted self-identification system by individuals seeking benefits intended for transgender people.
“In a country of over 1.4 billion people, there will be people desperate for this orientation to seize opportunities available to qualified people in this category,” the ICJ noted, adding that some people may “masquerade” as transgender people to secure reservations or other benefits.
Justice Bagchi had observed that Parliament remains competent to change the legal basis on which a judicial decision is based, suggesting that the amendment must be independently tested against the constitutional guarantees under Article 21.
The Union government, represented by Mehta, defended the amendment by emphasizing that the law does not prohibit voluntary gender confirmation treatment and only criminalizes forced or coercive gender reassignment procedures.
The batch of petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by activists and organisations, including Lakshmi Narayan Tripathi, Akai Padmashali and Keener Ma Ek Samajik Sanstha Trust. The amendment received presidential approval on March 30, but has not yet entered into force.
