Transgender Amendment 2026 Cannot Cancel Vested Rights, Says Supreme Court Orally; Seeks Centre's Response

The Supreme Court on Monday told the Union Government to consider the impact of the 2026 amendment to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act on persons who were in the middle of sex reassignment therapies or who have already received Transgender cards.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana orally observed that the rights already vested in Transgender persons should not be disturbed. However, the bench refrained from passing an order to this effect, after Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that he will examine the issues.

Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, for one of the petitioners, fervently requested the passing of an order of status quo for persons who have already been issued Transgender cards. She added that the national portal for transgender persons, on which persons have to apply for the new ID card, was now defunct. "The ones who have already got the TG card, their benefits cannot be discontinued", she submitted.

The Solicitor said that the new amendment has taken away the concept of self-assessment as it was leading to problems. "Suppose I am a biological man, and I think I am a woman and get a TG card, and suppose I start using the ladies' toilet...this is happening," SG said.

Justice Bagchi however said that the 2026 amendment is a prospective law and cannot cancel the rights which were already conferred, and if they have to be cancelled, then notice must be given to the person.

"We are conscious of the concerns. If the legislature felt this is a situation which requires a clarificatory amendment, it would have given the amendment or the new law an effect of repeal to take away the rights already conferred. Having not done that, and being a prospective law, the rights which have accrued in the form of transgender rights, they are to remain. And whenever they are fraudulent, notice has to be given to them and thereafter cancel it," Justice Bagchi said.

SG said that there are complications arising out of self-assessment. "Suppose a biological man, identifying as a woman, dies; will the succession be as per Hindu male intestate law or female intestate law? These are the issues."

Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju submitted that the new amendment will create a cloud of uncertainty over the identity of several persons, and requested the Court to pass an interim order to protect them. "There are persons who have changed their passports, changed their Aadhaar cards. A person whose status has been changed, and if they want to travel back to a country after availing a new Passport, suddenly they are left in a limbo," Katju said.

The bench said that the specific instances of persons facing such difficulties can be brought to the notice of the Court.

The petitioners submitted that doctors were apprehensive about continuing the hormone therapy for persons after the 2026 amendment. They pointed out that High Courts have passed interim orders in certain cases.

The SG requested the Court to give him time to respond. "This is not an urgent matter. This is not a ration card where you are not getting food. I fail to understand the urgency," SG said.

The petitioners disputed the SG's assertion, saying that the treatment of many persons has been disrupted. Advocate Kanmani, a transgender lawyer practising in the Madras High Court, submitted that a TG card was as important as a ration card for a transgender person.

The bench assured that if any person was facing any such difficulty, an application could be filed. The bench expressed reluctance to pass a general order, and said that fact-based individual relief can be granted. The SG appealed to the Court not to pass any order "preempting anything only on oral assertions."

The bench ultimately posted the matters to August 17.

The Court had issued notice to the Union on the petitions in May. Later, the Centre sought to transfer the cases pending in the High Courts to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while issuing notice on the Centre's transfer petitions, has stayed the proceedings in the High Courts.

 T.P.(C) No. 1686-1692/2026 UNION OF INDIA Vs NAI BHOR SANSTHA, LAXMI NARAYAN TRIPATHI AND ANR. v UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 548/2026 and connected cases