On Friday, March 13, the Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Dr Virendra Kumar introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, in the Lok Sabha. The proposed amendments seek significant changes to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, gutting the foundational principle of self-identification and self-determination, and the right to self-perceived gender identity, as enshrined in Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act and the 2014 NALSA judgement, which can cause more harm to a large proportion of individuals. We explain how with reasons below.
The proposed amendments introduce a highly restrictive definition of transgender persons, recognising only certain socio-cultural identities and intersex persons as transgender. It rejects the internationally and scientifically accepted validation of self-perceived gender identity, which also determines the identities of persons within the socio-cultural groups named in the amendments. The proposed definition specifically excludes a large number of trans men, non-binary, and genderqueer persons completely, and trans women who do not belong to a specific socio-cultural group.
The bill is highly discriminatory against trans men, trans masculine, genderqueer, and non-binary persons and exposes them to grave harm. Evidence shows that persons with such identities, trans men and transmasculine persons especially, continue to face pervasive and extreme discrimination in their natal homes, healthcare settings, as well as in society. If the bill passes with the proposed exclusionary definition, it will erase the very existence and legal recognition for such persons. It would become harder for them to change or maintain identity documents, access services, or be treated according to their gender.
The lack of recognition also increases everyday vulnerability and increases family and societal violence such as forced marriages or sexual abuse. It will result in denied healthcare, or persons being pushed toward unsafe and risky medical procedures causing extreme financial burden when formal systems become inaccessible. These changes can affect people’s safety, health, dignity, and mental well-being. The emergence of several listening circles, helplines and counselling services post the introduction of the amendments itself shows the intense anxiety and trauma it has caused to the community.
The proposed definition and the omission of Section 2(i) of the 2019 Act indicates a grossly harmful and confounding conflation of sex and gender – of transgender and intersex identities – whereas the needs and concerns of both groups are different. It is unclear where, how, and on what basis this conflation and exclusion is predicated, given the recognition of the necessity to define ‘persons with intersex variations’ separately even by the Standing Committee on the earlier 2016 Bill.
Further, the amendments complicate matters by proposing the immateriality of consent even for adults, and the presumption of force, allurement, or undue influence. This implies a pathological idea that a person identifies as a transgender person either due to biological anomalies or by force, completely negating the agency of an individual. Self-admittedly, the express purpose of the proposed amendments and the bill “was and is not to protect each and every class of persons with various gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities, or gender fluidities.” This is prima facie and directly misaligned with the Supreme Court’s holding in the 2014 NALSA judgement, wherein the court remarked that non-recognition of a transgender person’s self-identified gender has the effect of “nullifying” the equal protection guaranteed under the Constitution.
The 2019 Act, though critiqued for its imperfections and omissions, is the result of hard-won legal battles, years of community advocacy, and democratic deliberations. This led to appreciating the difference between sex and gender; discarding pathologisation of transgender, non-binary, and genderqueer identities present in the earlier drafts; and affirming every individual’s right to self-perceived gender identity. The broad definition under the 2019 Act, the removal of screening committees, the provision for access to education, employment, and healthcare, and the addition of grievance redressal mechanisms put India on the global stage as a forerunner in promoting transgender persons’ welfare. Special schemes for transgender persons’ welfare, such as the SMILE Scheme and Garima Greh, are already being rolled out by the Indian government. AB-PMJAY TG Plus cards were introduced to enable transgender persons to access healthcare benefits, including gender affirmative care. Several states in India, notably Kerala, Odisha, and Tamil Nadu, have enacted policies and started taking steps towards providing gender affirming care through public hospitals as per the 2019 Act. For example, a total of 738 transgender persons benefitted through medical treatments and surgeries at the trans clinic in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, between 2021-2024.
The amendments, if passed, can trigger an avalanche of disruptions and confusions on all these and more ongoing and critical healthcare and social welfare initiatives. Access to hormones, surgeries, and follow-up healthcare may become restricted if systems rely on legal recognition or certification, which now will be available for only a select subgroup. The proposed amendments would not only disrupt these much-needed initiatives but also create multiple forms of exclusions, further marginalise, and aggravate physical, psychological, and financial distress.
As per the new amendments, a medical transition becomes mandatory to effect changes in the document and the powers to allow access to the transition lies in the hands of medical professionals controlled by a medical board. The reintroduction of a medical board in the proposed amendment to Section 6 of the 2019 Act further compounds the issue of already-restricted access. Research shows that even under the unamended Section 6 and 7, bureaucratic hurdles act as barriers to accessing healthcare and other services.
The medical boards only add another layer to the current mandated application process under the 2019 Act, which would further compound the pre-existing burden on transgender persons to visit multiple departments and acquire the necessary identity certificates. For trans and gender diverse persons, medical boards and certification processes can become sites of humiliation and gatekeeping, as some studies have already shown. Trans and gender diverse persons may be forced to prove their identity through intrusive and extensive forms of examinations before panels that have the power to approve or deny their transition and legal recognition.
Further, mandating surgery for legal recognition, as the proposed amendments reinforce, perpetuates a pathologised and medicalised model of transgender identities that was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in the NALSA judgement 2014. Reporting requirements of all those seeking gender affirming care, which the Amendments propose, is a gross violation of the right to privacy, which is an integral part of the right to life itself. The reintroduction of a medical body directly undermines a transgender person’s rights to equality, non-discrimination, dignity, expression, and personal autonomy.
The proposed addition of Section 18(g) impacts not just trans gender and gender diverse persons, but the larger supportive social structures on which they are inter-dependent. The amendments produce an unintended effect of criminalising service providers, social workers, and community-based organisations that support, provide, or assist in providing gender-affirmative care and services. In past experiences, criminalisation of essential but stigmatised services has led to a “chilling effect” on medical practitioners and service providers. The broad, vague framings of the proposed Section 18(g) further risks drawing under its ambit social workers, and many support mechanisms that facilitate access to life-saving treatments. It may also create the risk of criminalising a wide range of non-cisheteronormative kinship structures and support systems such as deras and gharanas. This negates the intended purpose of the proposed amendments, compromises access to a broad range of services, including gender-affirmative care, and prima facie violates equal protection under the Constitution and dignified personhood to transgender persons.
In summary, the proposed amendments risk losing nearly a decade of legal progress and hard-won gains made through the struggles of transgender communities. While India is attempting to fulfill Sustainable Development Goals and to ‘leave no one behind’, the amendments paint a contradictory picture. Even though presented as a measure of protection, it instead threatens to strip many people of recognition, dignity, and access to their fundamental rights. If the intention is truly to protect transgender persons, the proposed amendments must be withdrawn, and an emphatic focus be made on the implementation of the 2019 Act and dealing with its imperfections. The proposed amendments unnecessarily reinvent the wheel, with little justifiable evidence, wherein trans and gender-diverse persons and communities struggle to access healthcare, employment, and non-discriminative treatment in society. Any amendments to the 2019 Act must be made through a participative, consultative, and democratic approach to ensure that all voices within the trans and gender-diverse community are heard. The bill proposing amendments has to be vehemently opposed. Any changes to the TG Act 2019 should henceforth be made only after transparent consultation with the broader transgender and gender-diverse communities.
Rihaa Badhwar (she/they) is a trans woman independent human rights advocate.
Vihaan Vee (he/him) is an Ambedkarite queer feminist trans man.
Rajalakshmi RamPrakash (she/her) is an LGBTQIA ally and independent public health researcher.
Views expressed are the authors’ own.