On the evening of 13 March 2026, the Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment in India, Dr. Virendra Kumar, introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill 2026 in the lower house of the Parliament of India. With this move, the government effectively attempted to strip people across India of a fundamental right recognised by the Supreme Court — the right to determine one’s own gender identity, affirmed in the landmark Supreme Court judgement of NALSA v. Union of India (2014).
The government said the “existing vague definition” of transgender persons had made it “impossible to identify the genuine oppressed persons to whom the benefits of the Act are intended to reach”. It said the law was never meant to protect “each and every class of persons with various gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities” and “was and is intended to protect only those who face severe social exclusion due to biological reasons for no fault of their own and no choice of their own.”
The amendment proposes to create a restricted category of transgender persons eligible for legal protection, while excluding many others. It drastically restricts the definition of transgender persons to a few socio-cultural identities such as hijras, kinnars, aravanis, and jogtas, and people with intersex variations (“eunuchs”), thereby excluding trans men and trans-masculine people, trans women and trans-feminine people who are not part of socio-cultural communities, non-binary individuals, genderqueer people, and gender-diverse communities across India, and other socio-cultural trans and gender diverse identities within India such as kothi, mangalmukhi, nupi maanbi, nupaa maanba, thirunangai, thirunambi, thirunar, dhurani, khwaja sira. It effectively rejects principles of self-perceived gender and self determination of gender.
By grouping intersex people within a transgender framework, the law conflates sex characteristics with gender identity, which are separate issues. This approach prevents the recognition of intersex-specific human rights concerns, such as non-consensual “normalising” surgeries on intersex infants, medical secrecy, lack of informed consent, and the right to bodily autonomy.
The bill introduces a new criminal provision in Section 18, allowing imprisonment of up to five years for “alluring” or “forcing” someone to become transgender, despite no credible evidence that such conduct exists as a social pattern in India. The provision could easily be misused to harass, target, and incarcerate individuals, communities, networks, and organisations, parents, and other supportive adults and service providers. The ‘socio-cultural communities’ who have been historically known to protect and nurture transgender individuals could be particularly at risk under this clause.
The provision vaguely articulates all possibilities of transness through a lens of mutilation or coercion, regardless of consent. The act of self-identifying one’s gender identity is seen as an act of violence on one’s body, thereby stripping bodily autonomy from transgender persons.
The bill shifts the power of self-identification from individuals to a government appointed medical board, undermining the Supreme Court of India’s holding in the NALSA v. Union of India judgement 2014 that read in gender identity into the Article 15 (non-discrimination) in harmony with Article 14 (right to equality), Article 19 (right to freedom of expression) and Article 21 (right to life, dignity and personal autonomy) of the Indian Constitution. By omitting section 4, sub section 2, the bill removes the one provision of the TG Act 2019 that most directly implements the NALSA mandate regarding self-identification.
The compulsory requirement of medical certification and the bureaucratic scrutiny of one’s gender identity is immoral and is a grave violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It creates systematic barriers for many transgender persons, who belong to socio-economically disadvantaged sections of society, to affirm their gender identity and access healthcare. The role of the medical board under section 6 is not just a violation of rights but also arbitrary and unworkable even under the amendment’s definition of transgender persons, since the socio-cultural identities listed are not based on medical criteria.
Requiring medical boards to compulsorily disclose or share medical details to administrative authorities raises serious privacy concerns and makes it more difficult to access procedures due to additional bureaucratic hurdles. The Supreme Court in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India recognised informational privacy and bodily autonomy as core components of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21. Mandating disclosure of intimate medical information, therefore, risks unlawful intrusion into deeply personal aspects of an individual’s life.
Other sources to learn more about the situation:
- Reject Trans Bill 2026 Instagram Account
- Against Trans Bill Instagram Account
- Yes We Exist India Instagram Account
- Trans Men Collective Instagram Account
- Collective Statement on Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill 2026
Call to actions:
- Parliamentarians and lawmakers should withdraw this amendment and uphold the constitutional rights, dignity, and autonomy of transgender persons in India.
- In any future amendment, the government should retain the definition of “transgender person” used in the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which reflects both constitutional principles and international human rights standards.
- Allies should be aware of these legal developments and collaborate across movements to lend support to the TG movements in India to advocate against the passing of the bill.
- Communities and citizens of India should sign the following collective statement drafted by grassroots organisations, activists, lawyers, academic, civil society organisations and workers advocating against the passing of the bill in India –
News
