The matter came up before a vacation bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana, which observed that fragmented adjudication across multiple High Courts could lead to inconsistent judicial interpretations. The Chief Justice noted that it would be preferable for either a single High Court or the Supreme Court itself to hear all connected cases to prevent the emergence of “scattered opinions” from different judicial forums.
The amendment legislation under challenge has been specifically questioned for removing the principle of self-identification of gender, a right previously upheld by the Supreme Court in its landmark National Legal Services Authority judgment. Petitioners have argued that the amended framework effectively mandates medical or administrative interventions for gender recognition, thereby infringing upon constitutional guarantees of dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that multiple petitions challenging the amended Act were already pending before several High Courts, while the Supreme Court itself was seized of related issues. He argued that parallel proceedings could result in conflicting judicial outcomes on the same legal questions.
One of the petitioners opposing the transfer application stated that he had learned of the Centre’s request only through media reports. The petitioner, a qualified medical doctor, submitted that his challenge was among the most comprehensive and involved significant medical and scientific questions.
He further contended that if consolidation was necessary, the cases should be heard collectively by a High Court first, enabling the Supreme Court to benefit from a detailed and reasoned judgment before undertaking final adjudication.
Responding to this submission, the Chief Justice observed that the Court would benefit from the assistance of the petitioner, particularly given his medical expertise, remarking that a qualified doctor would be significantly valuable in such proceedings.
Solicitor General Mehta, however, submitted that the complexity of the issues may warrant consideration by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court. He noted that the National Legal Services Authority judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench and that several petitions rely on its principles. He further argued that High Courts may face difficulty deviating from the precedent established in that decision.
Opposing this, the petitioner argued that his challenge was not based on the National Legal Services Authority judgment but directly questioned the provisions introduced through the amended legislation. He maintained that the law was unconstitutional and lacked credible medical foundation.
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice on the Central Government’s transfer petition and stayed proceedings pending before various High Courts across the country.
The decision effectively centralises the litigation concerning the amended transgender rights framework and underscores the judiciary’s intent to avoid conflicting rulings on a matter involving complex constitutional, medical, and rights-based questions.
About The Author
Comment List