The Central Government assured the Supreme Court on Monday that transgender identity cards issued prior to the 2026 amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act will remain valid. The assurance was provided during a hearing by a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, who are addressing pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment.
The Court had previously requested clarification regarding the status of those who had already received identity cards under the 2019 legislation and those in the process of acquiring them. Justice Bagchi remarked, “It was indicated to us that where there is a transgender card, it will be preserved. Some submissions are coming from the Bar that without a transgender card, identity documents have been changed. This has to be considered.”
The Supreme Court also agreed to evaluate cases where transgender identity cards were allegedly canceled or replaced due to the amendment and will consider applications pending when the new law was enacted. This issue was raised following an application by Ankani Biswas, who challenged the 2026 amendment. Biswas was issued a transgender identity card under the 2019 Act on February 2, 2023. However, upon accessing the National Portal for Transgender Persons on July 16, 2026, Biswas allegedly discovered that the previous card was replaced with a new one containing several errors.
According to the application, the new card lacked an official signature, seal, or digital authentication and erroneously recorded Biswas’s birth name instead of the adopted name. It also contained incorrect application and birth dates. The application argued that the replacement occurred without notice or an opportunity for a hearing. Furthermore, it indicated that the 2023 card was used to update other official records with Biswas’s new name and gender, prompting a plea for the restoration of the previous card and a directive to keep identity cards issued under the 2019 Act unaffected.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta acknowledged the complexities in aligning transgender recognition with current statutory provisions, stating, “It is becoming difficult to relate it with several statutory provisions. Today I am a man, I may say tomorrow I am a woman…”
More Read
In response, Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju emphasized that gender identity cannot be perceived in such simplistic terms, asserting, “It is not framed in that manner because it does not happen overnight.” Additionally, Senior Advocate Anand Grover highlighted the importance of preserving transgender identity cards issued by State governments based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in NALSA v Union of India, not just those under the 2019 Act. He cited examples from Tamil Nadu and suggested they should also be retained. Recognizing these concerns, CJI Kant indicated that the Court would consider the submissions.
Solicitor General Mehta requested four weeks for the final resolution of the case, a timeline agreed upon by CJI Kant, who will schedule the case accordingly.
