Key Facts
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed further proceedings in four high courts hearing challenges to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana issued notice on the Union government's plea to transfer all cases to the apex court, aiming to prevent conflicting rulings.
Details of the Order
The bench ordered: “Further proceedings before high courts shall remain stayed.” It observed: “It is better that all matters are taken up either by one high court or we decide it.” The matter is now listed for hearing in July.
Background of the Challenge
The 2026 amendment has sparked litigation across India, with petitioners arguing it undermines the principle of self-identification of gender established in the Supreme Court's 2014 NALSA judgment. The Centre contends that parallel proceedings could lead to divergent judgments.
Key Provisions Under Challenge
- Definition of transgender person: The amended Section 2(k) replaces a broad definition with a closed set of categories (e.g., hijra, kinner) or medically diagnosable conditions, potentially excluding many transgender individuals.
- Certification process: Requires government authorities and medical scrutiny, which petitioners call “medical gatekeeping.”
- Penal provisions: New offences with 10 years to life imprisonment for compelling someone to present as transgender, criticized as associating transgender identity with criminality.
What This Means for Transgender Rights
The Supreme Court's stay indicates a careful approach to balance self-identification with concerns about misuse of benefits. The court previously declined to stay the Act's operation, noting the need for detailed examination.
FAQ
Why did the Supreme Court stay proceedings in high courts?
To avoid conflicting rulings on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, as multiple high courts were hearing similar challenges.
What is the main issue with the 2026 amendment?
Petitioners argue it replaces the self-identification model with a restrictive regime requiring medical certification and state-defined categories.
Which high courts were hearing the challenges?
Rajasthan, Delhi, Karnataka, and Kerala high courts.