Polity · 5 Aug 2026

NALSA judgment accrued rights doctrine

Consider the following Assertion (A) and Reason (R): Assertion (A): The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 cannot retrospectively invalidate transgender identity cards already issued under the 2019 Act. Reason (R): Self-determined gender identity was recognised by the Supreme Court in the 2014 NALSA judgment as flowing from the dignity and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a). Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above Assertion (A) and Reason (R)?

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
CA is true but R is false
DA is false but R is true

Tests the ability to connect a constitutional precedent to its specific legal consequence - recognising causal explanation, not just factual recall of two independently true statements.

Subscribe / Login in App →
About this question

Why in news

The Supreme Court is hearing challenges to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, with petitioners arguing it dismantles the self-identification framework established by the 2019 Act and the 2014 NALSA verdict.

Why for UPSC

This tests whether aspirants understand NALSA not just as a standalone fact but as the constitutional reasoning underpinning why a later ordinary statute cannot casually withdraw an accrued right - a layered application UPSC favours in Assertion-Reasoning format.

Prelims summary

NALSA (2014) grounded self-determined gender identity in Articles 21 and 19(1)(a); this constitutional sourcing is why the 2026 Amendment Act cannot retrospectively invalidate identity cards already issued under the 2019 Act.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.