Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
President Droupadi Murmu has given her assent to the contentious Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, officially turning it into law, according to a gazette notification issued by the Union Law Ministry, on Monday, March 30.
The legislation was passed by the Rajya Sabha on March 25, a day after it cleared the Lok Sabha, amid Opposition demands to refer it to a select committee for further scrutiny over concerns that its provisions could impact the dignity of transgender persons.
Following the President’s assent, the Bill has now become an Act. However, the move has drawn widespread criticism from activists, lawyers, and members of the LGBTQIA+ community.
A day after the Rajya Sabha cleared the Bill, around 140 lawyers and feminists wrote to the President urging her to withhold assent, citing “constitutional violations” and “procedural infirmities” in the manner of its passage.
Several activists and public figures have since described the law as “regressive.” Nationalist Congress Party spokesperson and LGBTQIA+ rights activist Anish Gawande said, “the Act is now one of the most regressive pieces of legislation on transgender rights in the world,” adding that “to see India reverse decades of progress is shameful.”
AAP leader Ruben Mascarenhas echoed similar concerns, stating that India has joined “the ignominious club of countries with some of the worst human rights abuses,” calling the law “one of the most regressive legislations ever.”
At the heart of the criticism is the amended definition of “transgender persons,” which narrows eligibility. The Act excludes individuals based on self-perceived gender identity and instead recognises only those with specific socio-cultural identities or medically certified biological variations. It explicitly states that it does not include “persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities.”
This marks a departure from the 2019 law, which recognised a broad spectrum of identities, including trans men, trans women, and genderqueer persons, and upheld the right to self-identification.
The background to the legislation lies in the Supreme Court’s 2014 NALSA judgment, which affirmed the fundamental right to self-identify one’s gender. Activists say the amendment undermines this principle by introducing medical and bureaucratic gatekeeping, requiring individuals to undergo procedures and scrutiny by authorities to obtain recognition.
Community members also warn that the law could erase legal recognition for several groups, including trans men and non-binary persons, while placing transgender individuals under increased state and medical oversight.
Defending the legislation, Union Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Virendra Kumar said the amendment seeks to ensure protections for those facing discrimination due to biological factors. He maintained that transgender persons would continue to receive legal recognition and safeguards.
The government has also argued that the earlier definition was “vague” and made it “impossible to identify the genuine oppressed persons” intended to benefit from the law.