After the passing of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 on 24 March by Lok Sabha and consequently on 25 March by Rajya Sabha, many have expressed their annoyance and frustration. The bill that follows the edicts of exclusion more than inclusion under the guise of welfare and protection has been sent for the President’s assent to become law. The bill amends the 2019 Transgender Persons Act, which allowed for a considerable amount of freedom on the matters of identity and dignity. The 2019 law was based on the landmark National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgement passed by the Supreme Court in 2014. It recognised the right to identify one’s gender as a fundamental right. Individuals could identify as transgenders, legally, without the interference of any medical or bureaucratic board. According to the amendments in the new bill, the right to self-identify gender has been removed and self-identification carries no legal sanctity. The law involves a verification system that requires medical and official inspection. The District Magistrate can issue a Certificate of Identity only after reviewing a recommendation from a designated medical board, headed by a Chief Medical Officer or Deputy Chief Medical Officer. Many argue that this gives undue control to the state over personal identity. The amendment restricts the definition of ‘transgender’ and who qualifies as one under the law. The focus has been shifted to protect specific socio-cultural groups like the Hijras, the Kinnars, the Aravanis and the Jogtas and cater to certain biological conditions. It excludes broader categories and identities and self-perceived gender. There also exists ambiguity about the legality of the previously issued transgender certificates which were based on self-identification which might cause chaos and disruption administratively. The law is considered controversial as it reverses the progress made since 2014 in terms of identity and autonomy and aims to “gatekeep” the right to self-identify. Critics, including activists like Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Grace Banu say the law violates the right to dignity, privacy and bodily autonomy and differs from Supreme Court rulings and constitutional principles. Two members of the National Council of Transgender Persons (NCTP), Kalki Subramanium and Rituparna Neog, even resigned from their posts consequently after the passing of the bill. The government and its supporters argue that the amendment provides a precise legal definition, preventing misuse of benefits for transgenders persons and improving implementation of welfare schemes. The law is already affecting people, those who had recently secured legal recognition of their gender now face uncertainty. Families and healthcare workers are also concerned about the access to gender-affirming care and documentation. The near future probably holds legal challenges in courts, protests and activism related to the law and debate over balancing regulation with human rights. As the bill remains unpassed as a law yet, the breach of right to self-identification and autonomy seems concerning to say the least. The amendment marks a turning point in India’s transgender rights framework. Though opinions seem divided, the compassion for the people subjected to the law must not diminish. Everyone regardless of their identities and orientation are entitled to live a life of dignity based on their terms and idea of self.
04 Apr 2026
Tannishtha Chatterjee
