Transgender Amendment Act Consolidation | On June 15, 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana issued notice on the Union government’s transfer petition and simultaneously stayed all proceedings challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 before the Delhi, Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Kerala High Courts.
The bench indicated it may itself examine the constitutional challenge — or consolidate all petitions before a single High Court — explicitly to prevent a ‘scattered opinion’ emerging from multiple courts, according to Bar & Bench.
Background
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 was introduced in Lok Sabha on March 13, 2026. It passed the Lok Sabha by voice vote on March 24, cleared the Rajya Sabha on March 25, and received Presidential assent from President Droupadi Murmu on March 30, 2026, per SC Observer.
The first direct petition challenging the Act’s constitutional validity was filed before the Supreme Court on April 6, 2026. On May 4, 2026, the Court issued notice on those direct petitions but declined to grant an interim stay of the legislation. CJI Surya Kant was blunt at that stage, stating “there was no question of staying anything,” as reported by SC Observer.
- On May 27, 2026, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the Centre’s transfer petition before the Supreme Court, seeking urgent listing and citing the risk of divergent judicial views across High Courts.
- Petitions challenging the Act were filed and admitted before the Delhi, Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Kerala High Courts, creating the prospect of conflicting constitutional rulings on the same legislation.
- The central controversy is the Amendment Act’s removal of the right to self-identification of gender — a right upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2014 NALSA judgment (National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India) — and its replacement with medical board-based administrative certification, according to Lawbeat.
The Ruling — Key Findings
On June 15, 2026, the bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana passed a clear interim order. According to LiveLaw, the court directed: “Further proceedings in the High Courts shall remain stayed.”
The bench indicated the Court may choose to hear all transferred petitions itself, or may consolidate them before one High Court — the primary objective in either case being to avoid conflicting verdicts. CJI Surya Kant was quoted as saying the Court may itself decide the matter to avoid a “scattered opinion.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, argued before the bench that the constitutional validity of a central legislation should be examined in a coordinated and unified manner, as reported by LiveLaw.
SG Mehta further urged that if the petitions are transferred to the Supreme Court, they be placed before a 3-judge bench. His reasoning: the 2014 NALSA judgment — the primary precedent relied upon by petitioners — was itself rendered by a 2-judge bench, and a larger bench may be required to authoritatively reconsider or distinguish it.
Critically, no interim stay of the Transgender Amendment Act itself has been granted at any stage. The legislation remains in force as proceedings continue.
Reactions & What’s Next
Petitioners pushed back on the Centre’s consolidation move. A petitioner’s counsel argued that the challenge to the Amendment Act “is not only unconstitutional but also has no medical basis,” according to Bar & Bench — a reference to the Act’s introduction of medical board certification as the gateway to gender recognition.
Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi appeared for petitioner Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, while Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari represented activist Akkai Padmashali, per SC Observer. Petitioners have argued the Amendment Act violates Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and inflicts “irreparable constitutional injury” on transgender persons.
With the stay of all four High Court proceedings now in place, the matter is firmly before the Supreme Court. The bench has yet to announce a specific next hearing date in the sources reviewed. The question of whether the case proceeds before a 2-judge or 3-judge bench remains open and may itself become a contested preliminary issue.
Initial coverage: Bar & Bench. More legal news at The Courtroom.
What did the Supreme Court order on June 15, 2026 regarding the Transgender Amendment Act?
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana issued notice on the Union government’s transfer petition and stayed all proceedings challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 before the Delhi, Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Kerala High Courts. The legislation itself was not stayed and remains in force.
Why are petitioners challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026?
Petitioners argue the Amendment Act removes the right to self-identification of gender — a right recognised under the Supreme Court’s 2014 NALSA judgment — and replaces it with medical board-based certification. They contend this violates Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and has no medical basis.
Why did the Solicitor General request a 3-judge bench for this matter?
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that since the NALSA judgment — the key precedent cited by petitioners — was rendered by a 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the constitutional questions raised by the Amendment Act may require examination by a larger, 3-judge bench to authoritatively resolve them.
When was the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 passed?
The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on March 13, 2026, passed by Lok Sabha on March 24, passed by Rajya Sabha on March 25, and received Presidential assent from President Droupadi Murmu on March 30, 2026.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
