The Union government on Monday told the Supreme Court that transgender identity card holders under a previous regime enacted by the 2019 law will continue to be treated as valid and retain the benefits attached to their cards until the top court decides the constitutional validity of the new law.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told a bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, that the government would file its detailed response within four weeks, while assuring that existing transgender (TG) cards would continue to operate in the meantime.
The bench recorded the assurance and ordered that “TG cards will continue to operate subject to the outcome of the petitions”.
The court, however, declined to extend the interim protection to those who are still in the process of obtaining transgender cards or whose cards have been cancelled, saying it could not pass a blanket order while examining the validity of the amended law.
The bench recalled that its immediate concern was to ensure that persons who had already obtained transgender cards did not lose benefits they had acquired under the earlier legal framework.
{{/usCountry}}The bench recalled that its immediate concern was to ensure that persons who had already obtained transgender cards did not lose benefits they had acquired under the earlier legal framework.
{{/usCountry}}“The concern expressed by us last time was that those who have received cards, they should continue to have the benefits,” said the bench.
Senior advocate Arundhati Katju pointed out some transgender persons had not yet obtained cards but were already in the process of transitioning. Senior advocate Anand Grover, Rajiv Shakdher, Jayna Kothari and an array of other counsel also appeared in the matter.
Another counsel told the bench that some transgender cards were also cancelled.
The bench responded that cases involving cancelled cards would involve a separate decision-making process and could not be covered by a blanket direction. “Where cards have been cancelled, there is also a decision-making process involved. We cannot pass a blanket order,” it said.
The court also made it clear that it was conscious of the need to avoid passing an interim order that could prejudge the constitutional challenge to the new legislation.
“We are examining the law. We can’t issue an interim order that could comment on the merit of the case,” said the bench, while protecting those who already possessed transgender cards. Another counsel sought a direction that pending applications for transgender cards be processed.
The bench noted that it had been indicated earlier that existing transgender cards will be preserved, but said submissions that identity documents had been changed even without transgender cards would require consideration. “Some submissions are coming from the Bar that without a transgender card, identity documents have been changed. This has to be considered,” it told Mehta.
The proceedings are part of the Supreme Court’s examination of a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.
The new law has been challenged on the ground that it dilutes the principle of self-identification of gender recognised by the Supreme Court in its landmark 2014 NALSA judgment.