The Supreme Court of India recently addressed two significant social and educational concerns, providing clarity on the legal status of transgender individuals and the security protocols for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). In a session held on August 3, 2026, the Court clarified that new legislative amendments regarding transgender identity cannot retrospectively invalidate transgender identity cards already issued under previous laws. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, emphasized that rights already conferred upon individuals remain protected unless a specific legal process for cancellation is followed. This intervention followed concerns from activists that the 2026 Amendment Act might undermine the self-identification rights previously upheld by the judiciary.
Simultaneously, the Court is overseeing efforts to overhaul the integrity of the NEET-UG examination. Following recurring allegations of paper leaks, the Union government has committed to placing a detailed affidavit before the Court. This document will outline the entire methodology for securing question papers, from the initial printing stage to their distribution in examination halls. The government is working under the guidance of a high-level task force led by Nandan Nilekani, which is exploring long-term institutional reforms, including a potential transition to computer-based testing. The Court has stressed that it will closely monitor these measures to ensure the future of students is not jeopardized by ad-hoc arrangements.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the withdrawal of First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against students who participated in protests over NEET irregularities. The Court clarified that state governments have the discretion to close or withdraw these cases in accordance with the law, provided the students are not accused of grave or heinous offenses. This move aims to balance the right to peaceful protest with the need to maintain public order, ensuring that students facing minor charges are not unfairly penalized while serious criminal conduct remains subject to investigation.