SC to consider interim protection for transgender identity cards issued under 2019 Act

Petitioners: Identity cards cannot be rendered meaningless

Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari informed the Court that the Amendment Act was notified in the Gazette and brought into force with effect from 25 May 2026. She submitted that the national portal, through which transgender persons obtained identity cards under the 2019 Act, had become “completely defunct”. She argued that this created uncertainty over the validity of identity cards already issued. “It should continue so that at least the persons who got the transgender card under the old Act cannot be denied any rights,” Kothari contended. She urged the Court to preserve the status of those cards until the constitutional challenge is decided.

Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju added that the amendment had created uncertainty for transgender persons whose legal identity had already been recognised by the State. Referring to individuals who had changed their passports and other official documents, she submitted, “A person whose status has been changed…after availing of a new passport, they are suddenly left in limbo.” She added that the consequences were not merely administrative. Persons undergoing hormone replacement therapy had found that treatment was no longer being continued after the Amendment Act came into force.

The Bench, however, asked the petitioners to place concrete instances of hardship on record before seeking interim protection. Kothari responded that the petitioners were seeking only a limited interim arrangement to ensure that persons who had already been recognised under the 2019 Act did not lose access to the rights flowing from those identity cards.

Centre: Amendment raises wider legal questions

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, sought one week’s time to file response and requested that the petitions ultimately be heard finally. “I request the Court not to pre-empt anything. Let me examine the problems,” Mehta submitted. Opposing an immediate order, he argued that the Court should first have the benefit of the government’s stand before issuing any interim directions. Responding to the petitioners’ plea, Mehta remarked, “These are not ration cards that you will not get ration. I fail to understand the urgency.”

He also submitted that the Amendment Act raised questions extending beyond recognition of gender identity. He cited succession under personal laws as an example. “I am a biological man, but I think I am a woman…and suppose I die. The succession would be as per a Hindu male dying intestate or Hindu female dying intestate? These are issues which will have to be gone into,” he said.

At this stage, Advocate Kanmani R. addressed the Bench to explain the practical consequences of withholding interim protection of this nature. “My Lords, I am a transgender lawyer. I cannot even rent a home without the card,”, adding to the petitioners’ submission that the identity card was indispensable for accessing housing, healthcare and other essential services.

The Bench nevertheless declined to pass an interim order solely on the basis of the oral submissions. Before rising, Justice Bagchi said, “We will decide on the interim prayers on the next date.”

The Court directed the Union to file its response. The matter will now be heard on 17 August.

 

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.