Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced in the Lok Sabha, has sparked strong opposition from transgender communities and rights advocates, who warn that the proposed law could roll back constitutional protections and erase entire identities from legal recognition.
Speaking to TNM, Fred Rogers, a transgender rights advocate, said the bill “is dehumanizing trans and gender-diverse community members” and removes the right to self-identification guaranteed under the Constitution and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2014 NALSA judgment.
The amendment, tabled on March 13 by Union Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Virendra Kumar, proposes sweeping changes to the 2019 Act. While the earlier law recognised a broad spectrum of identities — including trans men, trans women and genderqueer persons — the new bill narrows the definition to select socio-cultural identities such as hijra, kinnar, aravani and jogta, along with certain intersex variations.
Fred pointed out that the revised definition effectively excludes trans men, transmasculine persons and gender-diverse people assigned female at birth (AFAB). “This is a complete erasure of assigned female at birth, trans and gender-diverse community members identifying themselves as men, trans men, transmasculine persons,” he said.
A key concern raised by activists is the deletion of Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act, which guaranteed the right to self-perceived gender identity. The amendment replaces self-identification with a system that requires medical procedures and certification by medical boards and district authorities, drawing criticism for increasing bureaucratic and medical control over identity.
Fred warned that removing self-identification “pushes us into invisibility,” adding that such invisibility would restrict access to education, employment, healthcare and welfare measures. “The right to define our gender is not a privilege. It is a constitutional right and we will not be erased,” he said.
Legal experts and community groups argue that the bill contradicts the Supreme Court’s NALSA ruling, which recognised gender self-determination as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21. They say the amendment risks undoing a decade of progress by placing transgender persons under increased state and medical scrutiny.
The bill has also drawn criticism for its broader implications, including concerns about the criminalisation of chosen families, who are the support systems that have historically provided shelter to transgender persons facing violence or rejection from natal families.
Activists say the proposed law reflects a limited understanding of gender diversity. “Their explanation focusing only on certain identities clearly reflects that they were never inclined to give us… rights, autonomy, protection, and entitlements,” Fred said.
Opposition to the bill has emerged from across the country, with community organisations, legal advocates and political groups calling for its immediate withdrawal. Many argue that no section of the transgender community had demanded such changes, questioning the basis for the amendment.
Despite the proposed exclusions, Fred asserted the resilience of the community. “We have always existed… and we will continue to exist,” he said, urging the government to reject the bill and uphold constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality.