New Delhi: The Union government told the Supreme Court on Monday (August 3) that allowing transgender persons to self-identify their gender without restriction could make as many as 169 statutory provisions across different laws “unworkable”. The apex court also orally asked the Union Government to consider the impact of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 on persons who were in the middle of sex reassignment therapies or who have transgender identity cards which were issued under the earlier law.A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, made the observations while hearing two related matters, a new petition contesting the amended law, and an older set of cases challenging the law’s validity altogether, which is bundled together with a request from the Union government to transfer similar petitions from various high courts to the Supreme Court, Hindustan Times reported.Senior advocate Anand Grover, representing petitioner Anuraj M., told the bench that the amendment marks a sharp departure from what the court had established over a decade ago. “The new law has created serious problems. I might have been born as a man but in my mind and personality, I am a woman. The new law takes away that right from me,” Grover submitted.When the case involving the larger group of petitions came up separately, senior advocate Jayna Kothari pointed out that the amended Act had already taken effect from May 25 through a gazette notification, and that the National Portal for Transgender Persons, which issued identity cards, was no longer functioning. She requested the apex court to pass an order and maintain status quo for persons who have already been issued transgender identity cards, Live Law reported.The bench however mentioned that issuing such a broad direction without pinning down exactly which rights were at stake could create more confusion than clarity on the ground.The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 was passed in the Lok Sabha on March 24 despite severe opposition.The 2026 amendment stipulates medical evaluation requirement, which transgender rights activists and advocacy groups argue, directly contravenes the NALSA ruling and violates the right to bodily integrity and privacy protected under Article 21 in Puttaswamy v. Union of India.‘Suppose a person born as a man starts using a toilet meant for women’During the hearing on Monday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the government would file its detailed reply in the main set of petitions, however, he also told the bench that “I must point out that at least 169 statutory provisions across different laws will become unworkable if the argument that I am born as a man but I should be treated as a woman is accepted.”Mehta said the the law was reworked by the parliament after weighing the broader consequences of unrestricted self-identification. To illustrate the point, Mehta raised a string of hypothetical scenarios.“Self-determination is one issue… Suppose a person born as a man starts using a toilet meant for women… 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,” he said.Responding to Mehta, Justice Bagchi observed, “We are conscious of the concerns. If the legislature felt this is a situation which requires a clarificatory amendment, it would have given the amendment or the new law an effect of repeal to take away the rights already conferred. Having not done that, and being a prospective law, the rights which have accrued in the form of transgender rights, they are to remain. And whenever they are fraudulent, notice has to be given to them and thereafter cancel it.”‘There are persons who have changed their passports’Senior advocate Arundhati Katju, appearing for one of the other petitioners, flagged specific hardships that have surfaced since the new law came into force. According to her, some transgender individuals who had already updated their legal gender status were now stuck in a bureaucratic limbo when travelling abroad, and doctors were growing reluctant to continue hormone replacement therapy given the legal uncertainty.“There are persons who have changed their passports, changed their Aadhaar cards. A person whose status has been changed, and if they want to travel back to a country after availing a new passport, suddenly they are left in a limbo,” Katju was quoted as saying by Live Law.The bench took this concern seriously, noting that breaks in hormonal treatment could cause real physical harm. “There must be regular hormonal therapy and the lack of it can harm physically… please come back with instructions on this,” the bench told Mehta.The apex court bench have scheduled the case for August 17, when it will decide whether to pass an interim order safeguarding the position of existing cardholders while the broader constitutional challenge to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 will still remain pending.