Transgender Identity Cards Already Issued Will Remain Operational: Centre Tells Supreme Court

During the hearing of a bunch of petitions assailing the validity of Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, the Union has submitted before the Supreme Court that Transgender Identity Cards, which are already issued to various persons, will remain operational.

On the last date of hearing, the Court 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.

On May 4, 2026, the Court had issued notices to the Union of India and all State Governments regarding the pleas challenging the Amendment Act.

The Court had also issued notice on a transfer petition filed by the Union seeking to transfer all ongoing challenges against the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights (Amendment) Act 2026 from various High Courts.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice in various applications and asked the Respondents to file a counter affidavit and further directed the appointment of a nodal counsel to prepare a consolidated compilation of pleadings for further hearing.

Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju appeared for the Petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union.

Mehta submitted, "Reply will be filed; meanwhile, the cards which are given to them will continue..."

Katju also highlighted an application on behalf of persons who are under transition. It was urged that similar benefits may be granted to such persons as well. However, the Court refused to pass any ad-interim directions without hearing the Union. Therefore, the Court sought the response from the Union on the Applications.

Chief Justice Kant said, "If they are required to act upon, they will have to act upon as to the existing law. If it passes any internal direction, that means we are changing the law today. Not just the benefits flowing from the existing ID cards."

Justice Bagchi remarked, "We understand the process of transformation or change from a transgender, from a biological man to a trans woman or a biological woman to a trans man...It's a continuous process. Flying a forensic rule until and unless a vested right comes, you cannot preserve it in the face of a parliamentary law or an amendment in the parliamentary law..."

The petitioners, including trans rights activists and legal professionals appearing in person, submitted that gender transition constituted an ongoing, non-instantaneous process. Counsel urged the Bench to grant comprehensive interim protection, highlighting that several individuals had updated their official identity documents or initiated hormone replacement therapy prior to the recent statutory changes.

Concerns were raised that the cancellation of cards and ambiguous legal status left transitioning individuals in limbo, thereby depriving them of essential statutory benefits and healthcare coverage under schemes such as Ayushman Bharat.

The Bench declined to issue an umbrella direction covering all pending applications or un-carded transitioning individuals prior to receiving the Union's response.

However, by way of ad-interim protection, the Court recorded that all Transgender Identity (TG) Cards previously issued—whether by the Central Government or State Governments pursuant to the NALSA judgment—shall continue to remain operational, along with all consequential benefits and privileges attached thereto, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

The 2026 Amendment mandates that a Medical Board, typically headed by a Chief Medical Officer, must examine and recommend an applicant before a District Magistrate can issue an identity certificate.

The Amendment also introduces mandatory reporting and surveillance mechanisms. Hospitals and medical institutions are now required to report details of all gender-affirming surgeries to the District Magistrate and the Medical Board.

The petitions argued that the new legislation is unconstitutional and "ultra vires" as it systematically dismantles the landmark NALSA (2014) judgment by stripping away the fundamental right to self-perceived gender identity. The most critical change is the deletion of the right to self-perceived gender identity. Under the original 2019 Act, a person could obtain a transgender certificate based on their internal sense of self.

The petition before the Supreme Court sought direction declaring 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 Impugned Amendment Act, shall remain valid and shall not be invalidated, revoked, or rendered ineffective by any provision of the Amendment Act, and that the rights and entitlements flowing from those certificates shall continue in full force.

Previously, the Court agreed to hear the plea seeking the transfer to the Supreme Court, the Writ Petitions before various High Courts, challenging the Transgender Persons Amendment Act, 2026. The matter was mentioned by the Solicitor General, who requested the Court to list the matter on Friday, i.e. May 29, 2026, as there are various High Courts which will hear the matter during the vacations of the Supreme Court.

The Kerala High Court had passed interim orders in pleas challenging the constitutionality of the amendment, permitting the continuation of hormone therapy by transgender persons.

The Rajasthan High Court, while adjudicating a writ petition concerning reservation for transgender persons, made observations in its epilogue on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, noting that the proposed legislative change risks reducing the framework governing recognition of gender identity to state-mediated entitlement.

Cause Title: Laxmi Narayan Tripathi v. Union of India and other connected matters. [W.P.(C) No. 548/2026]