New Delhi, May 27: The Union government on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to transfer to itself multiple petitions pending before various High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, arguing that parallel proceedings could lead to conflicting judicial interpretations across the country.
The request was made before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who informed the apex court that several petitions challenging the amended transgender law are currently being heard by different High Courts, including those in Delhi, Rajasthan, Kerala and Karnataka.
Appearing before the Bench, the Solicitor General submitted that the Centre had already filed transfer petitions before the Supreme Court and sought urgent listing of the matter. He also indicated that once notices were issued, the Union government could request High Courts to defer further hearings until the apex court decided the issue.
Responding to the submission, Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that divergent opinions from High Courts are not always undesirable and observed that differing judicial views can sometimes prove beneficial. The court, however, stated that it would consider the request for urgent listing of the transfer petitions.
The legal development comes amid growing constitutional challenges to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, which has triggered criticism from transgender rights groups and petitioners who argue that the amended provisions undermine the principle of gender self-identification recognised by the Supreme Court in its landmark NALSA judgment.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had issued notice on a separate petition challenging the amended legislation and directed that the matter be placed before a three-judge Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India in his capacity as Master of the Roster.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had sought responses from the Union government, states and Union Territories on allegations that the amended law violates the fundamental rights of transgender persons guaranteed under the Constitution.
Petitioners challenging the amendment have argued that the revised provisions introduce a framework requiring medical certification and state-controlled verification of gender identity, thereby diluting the right to self-identification previously recognised by the apex court.
The Delhi High Court had earlier issued notice to the Centre on a public interest litigation challenging the amended law. The plea contended that the provisions infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution by subjecting gender identity to official scrutiny instead of recognising self-perceived identity.
Similar constitutional challenges are also pending before the Rajasthan, Kerala and Karnataka High Courts. The Rajasthan High Court, while hearing a petition filed by NGO Nai Bhor Sanstha, sought the Centre’s response on claims that the amended law undermines privacy, dignity and autonomy of transgender persons.
Before the Karnataka High Court, two transwomen have challenged the amended provisions, alleging that the law excludes individuals asserting their right to self-identification from the legal definition of a transgender person.
The Kerala High Court is also examining pleas alleging that the amendment narrows the definition of transgender persons and mandates medical testing for identity certificates, contrary to the principles laid down in the NALSA judgment.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the Centre’s transfer request is expected to determine whether all pending constitutional challenges to the transgender amendment law will be heard together by the apex court.
