SC to Hear Challenges Against Transgender Rights Amendment Act on August 17

The Supreme Court on Monday decided to conduct the final hearing on August 17 on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, also expressed concerns over protecting the rights of transgender persons who were issued identity cards under the earlier legal framework.

Justice Bagchi said the court was particularly concerned about ensuring that individuals holding Transgender (TG) identity cards issued under the previous law do not lose their existing rights during the pendency of the proceedings. Senior advocate Jayna Kothari, appearing for one of the petitioners, urged the court to maintain the validity of such cards until the legal challenge is decided.

Kothari informed the bench that after the amended law was notified with effect from May 25, the National Portal for Transgender Persons, through which identity cards are issued, became non-functional. She argued that the disruption could affect transgender persons who had already secured legal recognition and related benefits under the previous system.

Other petitioners highlighted difficulties allegedly caused by the implementation of the amended law, including uncertainty over updated official documents such as passports and possible disruption in access to hormone replacement therapy. A transgender lawyer from the Madras High Court also raised concerns about social and professional challenges faced by transgender persons.

Representing the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought one week to file a response and requested that the matter be heard finally. He said the case involved several complex legal issues, including questions related to succession rights, and urged the court not to pass interim orders without examining all aspects.

The Supreme Court also issued notice on a fresh petition filed by a transgender person from Kerala who challenged issues related to eligibility for a male-reserved Police Sub-Inspector post. Earlier, the court had sought the Centre’s response to a plea alleging that the amendment narrows the definition of a “transgender person” and conflicts with the landmark NALSA judgment, which recognised the right to self-identify gender. The petitioners have argued that the amendment violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution by affecting equality, dignity, privacy, autonomy and protection against discrimination.