The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that transgender identity cards issued before the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, would remain valid and would not be impacted by the new law.
A Transgender Identity (TGI) card provides official recognition of a person’s self-identified gender and can be used to support changes to their name and gender across official records. The government’s transgender portal specifically states that it enables changes to name and gender in official documents.
“I have taken instructions. The TGI ID cards issued earlier will continue to operate subject to the outcome (on the petitions),” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana during the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the 2026 amendment.
The amendment has been challenged, among other grounds, for taking away the right to self-identification of gender that was recognised under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
There were around 15 petitions challenging the validity of the amended law.
The Solicitor General also said that the Centre will file its response to the petitions.
The bench recorded the submissions of the top law officer and fixed the pleas for final hearing after three weeks.
On Monday, senior advocate Jayna Kothari, appearing for one of the petitioners, urged the bench to direct restoration of transgender identity cards that had already been cancelled.
The bench, however, said it could not issue a general direction on the issue and asked the petitioners to file applications bringing individual cases before it.
Kothari also sought protection for persons who had already applied for transgender identity cards and were awaiting their issuance.
The bench said it would await the Centre's reply affidavit before considering the issue.
Senior advocate Rajiv Shakdhar, appearing for another petitioner, supported the submission, saying that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioners and that benefits already available to transgender persons should not be disturbed.
Justice Bagchi said that the court would have to examine such issues on the basis of facts and circumstances of individual cases.
Senior advocate Arundhati Katju submitted that the 2019 law was founded on the principle of self-identification of gender. She said that benefits flowing from the parent legislation should not be discontinued merely because of the 2026 amendment.
Another advocate raised concerns over disruption of medical services for transgender persons who are currently undergoing treatment.
Kanmani, a transgender advocate practising before the Madras High Court, highlighted possible disruption of welfare benefits and other essential services.
Senior advocate Anand Grover submitted that some states had issued transgender identity cards on the basis of the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in NALSA v. Union of India, rather than under the 2019 legislation, and argued that such cards should also not be affected.
The top court had earlier stayed proceedings in petitions pending before various high courts challenging the 2026 amendment after the Centre sought their transfer to the apex court.
During the previous hearing on August 3, the bench had orally observed that the amendment could not take away rights already accrued to individuals.
The bench had said that it would take up all the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 law for final hearing on August 17.
On May 4, the bench had raised concern over the possibility of persons masquerading as transgender to avail government schemes. It had sought responses from the Centre and others on the pleas challenging the validity of the new law.
On March 25, Parliament passed a bill to amend the law on the protection and rights of transgender persons, which excludes social orientations from the ambit of the statute. It received the President's assent on March 30.
The Act provides for graded punishment based on the gravity of harm inflicted on such people.
The petitioners have referred to the apex court's 2014 judgement which had upheld the transgender persons' right to decide their self-identified gender.
The verdict had directed the Centre and the states to grant legal recognition of their gender identity such as male, female or third gender.
One of the pleas filed in the apex court has sought a declaration that the right to self-identification of gender, as recognised by the top court in the 2014 verdict, is a fundamental right under Article 21 that "no legislation may make conditional upon bureaucratic certification, medical procedure, surgical intervention, or any clinical gateway of the State's choosing".
It has also sought a direction that all certificates of identity lawfully obtained by transgender persons under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, prior to the commencement of the amendment Act, shall remain valid and shall not be invalidated, revoked or rendered ineffective.
The plea said that rights and entitlements flowing from those certificates should continue in full force.
(With inputs from PTI)