Centre moves SC for transfer of pleas against transgender law from high courts

New Delhi: The Centre on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court seeking to consolidate and transfer all pending challenges against the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) (Amendment) Act, 2026, from various high courts to the apex court.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi seeking an urgent listing of the transfer petitions on Friday.

"We have filed transfer petitions to bring the challenges against the Transgender Amendment Act to this Court," the Solicitor General submitted.


Also Read: Parliament passes transgender bill amid opposition protest

"If the petitions are listed on Friday and notice is issued, we can request the high courts to defer their proceedings," he added.

The law officer said that since multiple high courts are currently seized of the matter, there is a significant risk of "divergent views" and conflicting judicial rulings on the validity of the federal legislation.

However, the CJI appeared reluctant and said the apex court often benefits from the foundational legal reasoning provided by provincial courts.

"Sometimes we can have the advantage of a high court view as well," the CJI said.

When the law officer reiterated the submissions, the CJI said he "will see".

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) (Amendment) Act, 2026, has come under intense legal scrutiny from human rights activists and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

The primary bone of contention is the removal of the concept of "self-identification" of gender, a right previously upheld by the Supreme Court in its landmark NALSA judgment.

The 2026 Amendment reportedly mandates medical or administrative interventions for gender recognition, which petitioners argue violates the right to dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court issued a formal notice to the Centre regarding separate petitions filed directly before it challenging the constitutional validity of the Act.