The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a transfer petition filed by the Union Government seeking consolidation of petitions pending before various High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana also stayed further proceedings in the pending High Court matters.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that multiple petitions challenging a Central legislation were pending across the country while the Supreme Court was already seized of related issues. He argued that allowing parallel proceedings could result in conflicting judicial views on the validity of the enactment.
One of the petitioners opposing the transfer request informed the Court that he had learnt about the transfer petition only through media reports. The petitioner, identifying himself as a qualified doctor, submitted that 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,” the CJI remarked.
SG Tushar Mehta further submitted that the issues raised may warrant consideration by a larger Bench. Noting that NALSA vs UOI, (2014) 5 SCC 438 was delivered by a two-judge Bench, he submitted that since several challenges to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 invoke the principles laid down in NALSA, the matter may warrant consideration by a larger Bench. Seeking issuance of notice on the transfer petition, he argued that High Courts may find it difficult to take a view contrary to the precedent set in NALSA.
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 legislation was not only unconstitutional but also lacked any credible medical basis.
During the hearing, the Bench indicated that it was undesirable to have multiple courts examining the same challenge simultaneously. 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.
“We will definitely require your assistance. Better it is that all the matters are taken up either we will give it to one High Court or we ourselves will decide instead of having a scattered opinion,” the Chief Justice observed.
Thus, the Court issued notice on the Centre’s transfer petition and stayed the proceedings pending before the High Courts.