Union promises no disruption to transgender identity cards already issued
Challenge to the Transgender Persons Amendment Act, 2026Judges: Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi J, V. Mohana J
Today, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana recorded the Union government’s statement that transgender identity cards already issued before the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 will continue to operate, subject to the outcome of the proceedings. Petitioners had raised concerns about the status of identity cards issued under the 2019 Act after the 2026 Amendment came into force.
At the previous hearing, petitioners had told the Court that the national portal for transgender identity cards had become “completely defunct” after the Amendment.
Petitioners press for continuity of identity cards and benefits
Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, appearing for Akkai Padmashali, sought the restoration of transgender identity cards that had already been cancelled. Kothari further sought protection for persons who had applied for transgender identity cards but were still waiting for them. The Bench indicated that it would wait for the Union’s reply before considering this issue. Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdhar, supplementing Kothari’s submissions, said that the balance of convenience was in the petitioners’ favour and that the benefits attached to existing identity cards should not be disturbed.
Justice Bagchi reiterated that the Bench could examine these issues on the basis of the facts and circumstances of individual applications.
Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju submitted that the 2019 law was based on the concept of self-identification of gender. She argued that the benefits flowing from the parent law should not be discontinued on account of the 2026 Amendment. Advocate Kanmani R., a transgender advocate practising in the Madras High Court, also raised concerns over the disruption of welfare benefits and services.
Union: Questions arise under other statutory provisions
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that it was becoming difficult to relate the issues arising from the Amendment to several statutory provisions. “Today I am a man, I may say tomorrow I am a woman,” he remarked. Katju responded that gender identity could not be understood as something that changed overnight.
Cards issued under NALSA must also be preserved
Senior Advocate Anand Grover submitted that transgender identity cards had not been issued only under the 2019 Act. He pointed out that some state governments had issued such cards after the Supreme Court’s decision in NALSA v Union of India (2014). The CJI said, “We will see.”
Justice Bagchi noted that the Court had been given to understand that existing transgender cards would be preserved. “It was indicated to us that where there is a transgender card, it will be preserved,” Justice Bagchi said. “There are some submissions from the Bar that without a transgender card, identity documents have been changed. This has to be considered.”
The Court directed the Union to file their reply and listed the matter after four weeks.
Disclaimer: Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari is a Managing Trustee of the Legal Observer Trust, the entity under which SCO operates. Trustees are not involved in shaping day-to-day editorial policy.