The Supreme Court on Monday directed that transgender identity (TG) cards already issued under the existing framework shall continue to operate, subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings. The direction came after the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that all transgender identity cards issued earlier would continue to remain operative.
The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the batch of petitions challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, informed the Court that transgender identity cards already issued would continue to operate, subject to the outcome of the proceedings. The Bench recorded the position and ordered accordingly.
The petitioners, however, pointed out that the issue was not confined to persons who already possess TG cards. Counsel submitted that several transgender persons are in the process of transitioning, have undergone medical or hormonal treatment and have applied for identity cards under the earlier framework, but their applications remain pending.
The Bench indicated that it would first require the Union’s response before issuing further directions on the treatment of such pending applications. Appearing in person, Advocate Thangjam Santa Singh, who identified herself as a transgender woman practising before the Madras High Court, submitted that the issue required interim protection for transgender persons affected by the change in law. She told the Court that transition is a continuing process and not an overnight change, pointing out that some petitioners had transgender identity cards while others did not, despite having lived in their identified gender for several years.
“
“Transgender person’s lives and transitioning is not a one day affair. It’s a journey, Lordship.”
The CJI, however, noted that the Court was examining the validity of the change in law and observed that until any contrary direction is passed, persons would have to act in accordance with the law currently in force.
The petitioners further argued that the protection should extend beyond the TG card itself to other identity documents and benefits flowing from the card. The Bench indicated that this aspect could also be considered after the Union files its response.
Counsel also highlighted cases of transgender persons who had changed their gender on other official documents even without possessing a TG card, and sought protection for their existing identity and consequential benefits. The Bench, however, cautioned against framing a blanket direction without examining the individual circumstances and the statutory provisions involved.
Another concern raised before the Court was regarding persons who had already begun medical or hormonal transition. Counsel submitted that some such persons were being asked to discontinue treatment due to concerns regarding penalties under the amended law.
“
“There are some persons, my Lord, who have gotten medical therapy and are midway in their medical or hormonal therapy. Now, those persons, my Lord, who are already undergoing treatment are being asked to back out from those medical treatments because of the fear of penalty under Section 80.”
The Court indicated that it would consider the broader issues in relation to the Amendment Act 2026. The Union sought four weeks’ time before the final hearing.