Change in transgender law cannot cancel rights already given, Supreme Court tells Centre

India's Supreme Court has made clear that recent changes to the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act will not retroactively invalidate existing transgender identification cards, according to reports. This verbal clarification came during a hearing involving the Union government and several petitioners, including members of the transgender community and activists, who challenged the new provisions. The amendments to the 2019 Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act were passed by Parliament in March 2026. These changes redefine eligibility criteria for identifying as a transgender person, removing the right to self-perceived gender identity. The revised law limits its scope to individuals with specific biological or physiological traits, intersex variations, or particular socio-cultural identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani, and jogta. Under the new rules, medical evaluation and certification become mandatory for legal gender recognition, with the authority to approve such transitions resting solely with medical professionals operating under a medical board. Petitioners opposing the amendments argued that the new law grants the government unchecked power over determining gender identity. They emphasized that transgender cards issued by the government serve as crucial identity documents and should not be invalidated. One petitioner's counsel requested an interim order to preserve the current situation until further legal action could be taken. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, presiding over the hearing, expressed concern for the rights of the transgender community and explicitly stated that the 2026 amendment would apply prospectively. This means it would not affect the rights of individuals who had already received transgender cards. However, the court did not issue an interim order to halt the implementation of the new law. The judge instructed the government's legal representative that even with legislative changes, previously conferred rights should remain intact. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, acknowledged potential issues arising from the ambiguity surrounding gender definitions, particularly concerning matters of succession and inheritance. He requested additional time for the government to provide a comprehensive response. During the debate in Parliament regarding the proposed amendments, opposition leaders voiced concerns that the changes undermined the right to self-identification recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2014 National Legal Services Authority v Union of India case. That ruling established the "third gender" classification for transgender individuals, recognizing them as a socially and economically disadvantaged group. The 2014 judgment also mandated that the government implement measures to protect the transgender community, including job quotas, access to education, health benefits, and the provision of separate public restrooms. These protections aimed to combat discrimination and promote social inclusion. The Supreme Court's verbal guidance underscores the ongoing tension between legislative reforms and constitutional rights. While the government seeks to impose stricter criteria for gender recognition, the judiciary appears committed to preserving the rights already granted to the transgender community. The outcome of this legal dispute will likely shape future policies and the lived experiences of transgender individuals in India.