SC concerned over validity of TG identity cards under amended law

The Supreme Court fixed August 17 for final hearing on petitions challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, while expressing concern over safeguarding the rights of transgender persons holding identity cards issued under the previous legal framework

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that it would take up all the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, for final hearing on August 17, while expressing concern over the rights of transgender persons who had obtained identity cards under the previous legal framework.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued the order in this regard. Justice Bagchi said the bench was particularly concerned about safeguarding the rights of transgender persons who had already been issued Transgender (TG) identity cards under the earlier law.

---

Appearing for one of the petitioners, senior advocate Jayna Kothari said that when the petitions were filed, the government issued a gazette notification bringing the amended law into force with effect from May 25.

The senior lawyer said the National Portal for Transgender Persons, through which individuals obtain their identity cards, had become non-functional. She urged the bench to ensure that persons who had already received TG cards under the previous law were not deprived of their existing rights.

She sought a status quo on the validity of such cards pending adjudication of the petitions. Other petitioners, through their lawyers, also highlighted practical difficulties allegedly arising from the implementation of the amended law.

It was submitted that transgender persons who had updated their legal status in official documents, including passports, could be left in uncertainty while travelling internationally. Another counsel said some individuals undergoing hormone replacement therapy were facing disruption in treatment, as doctors were reportedly not continuing their care.

A transgender lawyer of the Madras High Court said that persons like her were facing difficulties in getting accommodation in the city and often HC benches call her “him” during hearings. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, sought a week to file the response and urged the bench that the matter be heard finally.

The law officer said that several complex legal questions would have to be examined, including issues relating to succession. By way of illustration, he said that if a person identified as a woman despite being a “biological man,” questions could arise as to whether succession would be governed by the rules applicable to a Hindu male or a Hindu female dying intestate (dying without leaving a valid legal will).

Mehta urged the bench not to prejudge the issues through interim orders. “I request the court not to preempt anything. Let me examine the problems. These are not ration cards that you will not get ration. I fail to understand the urgency,” Mehta said. Kothari, however, pressed for interim protection to ensure that the rights of persons holding valid TG cards issued under the earlier law were not curtailed until the constitutional challenge is decided.

Earlier in the day, the bench issued notices to the Centre on a fresh plea filed by one transgender from Kerala who fought a legal battle against the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) to apply for a male-reserved Police Sub-Inspector post. The bench agreed to the submissions of senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for the petitioner, and issued a notice to the Centre and tagged the plea with pending ones.

Prior to this, the bench had sought the Centre’s response to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, which allegedly narrows the statutory definition of a “transgender person.”

The bench had issued notice to the Centre after hearing the petition, which argues that the amendment is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in National Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India that recognised an individual’s right to self-identify their gender.

According to the petitioner, the impugned proviso excludes persons who identify solely based on their self-perceived gender identity from the protection of the legislation. It is argued that the amendment departs from the original intent of the Act by limiting legal recognition to specified categories, thereby excluding a section of the transgender community.

The plea contends that the amendment infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It submits that denying legal recognition based on self-identified gender violates the rights to equality, dignity, autonomy, privacy, freedom of expression and protection against discrimination.