Supreme Court Urged to Consolidate Transgender Rights Petitions — Transfer from High Courts to Apex Court

Overview The Union government has asked the Supreme Court to take over four petitions that are currently pending in different High Courts . These petitions challenge the constitutionality of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 . The request was made on 27 May 2026 before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant . Key Developments The Solicitor General Tishar Mehta argued that the High Courts will resume work after the summer recess in the first week of June, and may decide the cases before the apex court does. He urged the Chief Justice to list the Union’s plea for transfer on 29 May 2026 . The petitions claim the 2026 Act removes the right to self‑identity by requiring a medical board recommendation and a District Magistrate certification. Petitioners argue this creates "medical gatekeeping" and contravenes the NALSA judgment , which affirmed self‑perceived gender as a fundamental right. Important Facts The 2026 amendment abruptly halted ongoing sex‑change therapies, leaving many transgender individuals without medical support. Section 3 of the Act omits the right to self‑perceived gender identity, shifting the decision‑making power to the State. Activists such as Laxminarayan Tripathi contend that the law criminalises forced sex change while denying autonomous identity. UPSC Relevance This case touches upon several UPSC syllabus points: • Constitutional law and fundamental rights – the challenge is based on alleged violation of Articles 14, 15, 21 (equality, non‑discrimination, and right to life). • Judicial review and hierarchy of courts – the request to shift cases from High Courts to the Supreme Court raises questions on jurisdiction and the need for uniform jurisprudence. • Social justice and welfare policies – the Act’s impact on transgender welfare aligns with GS 4 topics on inclusion and rights of marginalized groups. Way Forward The Supreme Court will decide whether to consolidate the petitions. A unified hearing could prevent divergent interpretations across states. Meanwhile, civil‑society groups are likely to intensify advocacy for restoring the self‑identity right recognised in the NALSA judgment . The outcome will shape future legislative approaches to transgender rights and set a precedent for State‑driven identity verification mechanisms.