The government on Monday told the Supreme Court that accepting the principle of self-identification of gender under the new transgender law could render 169 statutory provisions across different laws “unworkable”, even as the court agreed to examine whether transgender persons issued identity cards under the previous legal regime require interim protection to continue receiving benefits already available to them.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, posted the matter for August 17, when it will consider passing an interim order on protecting the rights of existing transgender card holders while the constitutional challenge to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 remains pending.
The observations came during hearings in two connected matters: one involving a fresh challenge to the amended law, and another concerning a batch of petitions challenging its constitutional validity, along with the Centre’s plea to transfer similar cases pending before various high courts to the Supreme Court.
The 2026 amendment has been challenged by transgender activists and organisations on the ground that it dilutes the principle of self-identification recognised by the apex court in the landmark NALSA judgment.
Appearing for petitioner Anuraj M, senior advocate Anand Grover argued that the amended law had fundamentally altered the principle recognised by the court in that judgment in 2014.
“The new law has created serious problems. I might have been born as a man but in my mind and personality, I am a woman. The new law takes away that right from me,” Grover submitted.
The bench agreed to issue notice in the petition and tag it with the pending batch of challenges filed by transgender activists, organisations and community leaders challenging the law.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the government’s response would be filed in the main batch itself and cautioned against accepting an unrestricted principle of self-identification.
“I must point out that at least 169 statutory provisions across different laws will become unworkable if the argument that I am born as a man but I should be treated as a woman is accepted,” Mehta submitted.
Later, when the batch of petitions was taken up, senior advocate Jayna Kothari submitted that the amended law had already come into force on May 25 pursuant to a gazette notification and that the National Portal for Transgender Persons had become non-functional, creating immediate difficulties for the community.
She urged the court to ensure that persons who had obtained transgender identity cards under the earlier legal framework were not deprived of benefits available to them. “And those who have got the TG card under the old legal regime, they should not be denied benefits they are entitled to,” Kothari argued.
Responding to the submissions, Mehta said the legislature had consciously altered the legal framework because of wider implications flowing from self-identification.
“Self-determination is one issue… Suppose a person born as a man starts using a toilet meant for women… Suppose I die, the succession would be as per Hindu male dying intestate or Hindu female dying intestate? These are issues which will have to be gone into,” the solicitor general submitted.
The bench, however, indicated that rights already accrued under the previous legal regime could not ordinarily be taken away without clear legislative intent.
“If the legislature felt that it was necessary, it could have issued a clarificatory amendment. There is no provision having the effect of taking away the rights already conferred…In a prospective law, rights already accrued have to remain. In those cases, they have to be put on notice and granted a hearing before any benefits are taken away. Otherwise, those rights are saved by the General Clauses Act,” observed the bench.
Senior advocate Arundhati Katju, appearing for another petitioner, highlighted practical hardships allegedly arising after the amended law came into force. She submitted that some transgender persons who had already changed their legal status were finding themselves in limbo while travelling internationally and that doctors were hesitant to continue hormone replacement therapy because of uncertainty surrounding the new legal framework.
The bench acknowledged the concern, observing that interruption of hormonal treatment could have serious physical consequences. “There must be regular hormonal therapy and the lack of it can harm physically…please come back with instructions on this,” the bench told Mehta.
While Kothari pressed for an immediate order protecting all benefits available to existing transgender card holders, the bench declined to pass such a direction immediately, observing that a blanket order without identifying the specific rights involved could create practical difficulties.