A transgender lawyer practising before the Madras High Court made an impassioned plea before the Supreme Court on Monday, urging protection of identity cards issued under the earlier transgender law, saying they were intrinsically linked to healthcare, housing, pensions and other welfare entitlements. The submissions came during the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, where the Union Government sought time to respond to concerns regarding the effect of the amendments on rights already accrued to existing transgender identity card holders.
At the outset, counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that although the Amendment Act had been notified to come into force from May 25, 2026, the National Portal for Transgender Persons had since been discontinued. The petitioners urged the Court to ensure that transgender persons who had already been issued identity cards under the previous legal regime continued to enjoy the rights and benefits attached to those cards until the challenge to the amendment was decided.
Opposing interim directions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Court should not pre-empt the issue without first examining the legal and practical consequences of the amendment. Explaining the Government’s concerns, he argued that the earlier self-identification regime had implications across several statutory provisions dealing with sex-based classifications.
“
“Self-assessment is the earlier regime. I am a biological man. I think I am a woman internally. I get the TG card. Suppose I go and start using the ladies’ toilet. This is happening. 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 further maintained that there was no material before the Court to show that rights already conferred had in fact been withdrawn. Seeking time to obtain instructions, he urged the Court not to pass interim orders merely on the basis of oral submissions.
“
“The law does not take away those rights. Please bring an instance where a transgender card has been cancelled by following the new law. Let me at least have instructions as to what is the impact of that status. On oral assertions, Your Lordships may not pre-empt anything. Within a week nothing is going to happen.”
During the hearing, a transgender lawyer appearing in person [Thangjam Santa Singh @ Santa Khurai Khurai & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 568/2026 ] addressed the Court. Introducing herself as a transgender woman practising before the Madras High Court, she said identity cards were not merely administrative documents but the foundation for accessing basic rights and living with dignity.
“
“I am a transgender woman practising before the Madras High Court. Not many of us are there across the country; we are hardly 10-15 people. It is our everyday life. Every time we are denied access to basic things like food, healthcare and housing. I am struggling to find a house in Chennai. Every time I don’t have an ID card… it has everything to do with the card. The ID card is tied to so many other welfare benefits. It is critical to us surviving.”
During the exchange, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that it understood the concerns regarding rights already conferred under the previous law, while the Solicitor General assured the Court that the Government was equally concerned about persons who had already been issued transgender identity cards under the repealed regime.
The Supreme Court thereafter directed the Union to file its response and posted the batch of petitions, including the applications seeking interim protection for existing transgender identity card holders, for further consideration on August 17, 2026.