The Supreme Court has scheduled August 17 to conduct the final hearing on a cluster of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, while voicing concern over the legal status and rights of transgender individuals who received identity cards under the previous legislative framework.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana issued the direction on Monday. During the proceedings, Justice Bagchi highlighted the bench’s primary concern regarding the protection of rights already granted to Transgender (TG) cardholders under the earlier legal regime.
Protection for Existing Identity Card Holders
Appearing on behalf of one of the petitioners, senior advocate Jayna Kothari informed the court that the Union government had brought the amended legislation into force through a gazette notification on May 25, while the constitutional challenges were already pending.
Kothari pointed out that the National Portal for Transgender Persons, which serves as the official mechanism for issuing identity cards, had stopped functioning. She urged the bench to grant interim protection and maintain a status quo on the validity of existing TG cards to prevent cardholders from being stripped of their statutory rights while the court adjudicates the matter.
Operational and Healthcare Disruptions Cited
Lawyers representing various petitioners outlined several practical hardships triggered by the implementation of the amended statute. The court was informed that transgender individuals who had successfully updated their gender details on official documents, such as passports, now face severe uncertainty during international travel.
Counsel also drawn attention to medical disruptions, stating that doctors have stopped providing care for several individuals undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Additionally, a transgender advocate practicing at the Madras High Court shared personal grievances before the court, stating that transgender individuals like her struggle to secure housing in the city and are frequently misgendered as “him” by High Court benches during judicial hearings.
Centre Requests Time to Address Complex Questions
Representing the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested a one-week extension to file a detailed response and supported the decision to hear the matter finally.
Mehta argued that the petitions raise intricate legal issues that require thorough examination, particularly regarding succession laws. He cited an example involving a biological male who identifies as a woman, questioning whether rules governing a Hindu male or Hindu female dying intestate would apply.
The Solicitor General urged the bench against issuing interim orders that might preempt the final outcome, contending that the issues lacked immediate urgency and that he required time to examine the operational problems thoroughly. Kothari, however, reiterated her demand for interim safeguards until a final ruling is delivered.
Challenges to Statutory Definition and Constitutional Validity
In a related development on Monday, the bench issued a notice to the Centre on a fresh writ petition filed by a transgender individual from Kerala. The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Anand Grover, had previously fought a legal battle against the Kerala Public Service Commission to apply for a male-reserved Police Sub-Inspector position. The court tagged the fresh plea with the existing batch of petitions.
The court had earlier sought the Centre’s reply to another petition challenging the proviso to Section 2(k) of the 2026 Amendment Act. That petition argues that the proviso narrows the statutory definition of a “transgender person” by excluding individuals who identify solely on the basis of self-perceived gender identity.
According to the plea, the amendment departs from the principle of gender self-determination established in the Supreme Court’s landmark National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India judgment. The challenge asserts that denying legal recognition to self-identified gender identity violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, which protect equality, dignity, autonomy, privacy, freedom of expression, and non-discrimination.
