Top News

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 3) orally urged the Centre to take into consideration the impact of the 2026 amendment to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act on individuals who are currently undergoing sex reassignment therapies or have already issued transgender cards.

The bench of 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 disrupted.

However, the apex court declined to pass an order in this regard as Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta stated that he will look into the issues.

Petitioner flags concerns

Appearing for one of the petitioners, senior advocate Jayna Kothari, urged the court to pass an order to maintain status quo for those who have already received transgender cards.

Also Read: Jantar Mantar no longer suitable for protests? SC seeks Centre’s response

“The ones who have already got the TG card, their benefits cannot be discontinued”, she stated as quoted by Live Law. Appearing for the Centre, Mehta argued that the provision of self-assessment has been removed as it was resulting in 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,” he added.

Existing rights debated

Responding to the argument, Justice Bagchi pointed out that the amendment is prospective law, adding that it cannot cancel already conferred rights.

Also Read: SC to hear plea seeking action against July 20 Parliament march organisers

“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 stated.

Next hearing on Aug 17

Elaborating further on the problems arising out of the self-assessment provision, Mehta stated, “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.”

“This is not an urgent matter. This is not a ration card where you are not getting food. I fail to understand the urgency,” he added. The matter was posted to August 17 for the next hearing.