Despite protests across the country, the contentious Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed by voice vote at the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, March 24. The bill will significantly alter the framework of the 2019 law by narrowing the legal definition of a transgender person and removing the right to self-perceived gender identity. The bill will now be presented before the Rajya Sabha.
Introduced on March 13, the amendment rolls back a key provision of the existing legislation, restricting recognition only to individuals with certain biological or physiological characteristics, intersex variations, or socio-cultural identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta. The amendment has completely excluded trans men, trans women, and genderqueer identities, which was earlier recognised by the 2019 Act.
These changes directly contradict the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) case, which upheld the right to self-identification and formally recognised a “third gender” category.
The bill was passed in the Lok Sabha amid sharp criticism from Opposition parties, who accused the Union government of advancing an exclusionary and medically driven approach without consulting the transgender community.
The Opposition parties described it as “draconian” and reflective of what they called the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Union government’s “callous” approach to transgender rights.
Opposition leaders also argued that the amendments undermine the NALSA judgement of the Supreme Court, which had recognised a “third gender” category and affirmed the right to self-identification. In its ruling, the court had also directed the government to provide job reservations, access to education and healthcare, separate public toilets, and other protections for transgender persons.
A central feature of the new bill is the requirement for medical evaluation and certification for legal gender recognition, vesting authority in medical professionals operating under a medical board. This marks a departure from the self-identification standard recognised by the Supreme Court.
The bill also proposes graded punishments, raising the maximum penalty for offences against transgender persons from two years under the 2019 law to 14 years. It states that the law applies only to a narrowly defined group facing “extreme and oppressive” discrimination, excluding others with diverse or fluid gender identities.
Opposition MPs take strong exception
Congress MP S Jyothimani said the legislation had been introduced without any consultation with the transgender community and called for it to be sent to a standing committee. “This is not democracy but a monologue of power, which is the trademark of the Modi government,” she said.
Samajwadi Party MP Anand Bhadauria questioned the government’s claim that the bill was aimed at welfare, arguing that its restrictive definitions would unfairly exclude significant sections of the community.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MP T Sumathy accused the Union government of interfering with the right to self-determination, saying, “This government treats the transgender community as subjects to be corrected, which is highly condemnable.”
Congress MP K Sudha R strongly opposed the amendment bill, saying she rose “not only to oppose it, but to challenge its intent, direction, and consequences”. She argued that although the government presents the bill as a reform, it is in fact “a retreat from constitutional morality, judicial guidance, and the rights of a marginalised community”.
Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) leader Supriya Sule also opposed the bill, criticising the “extremely hasty” manner in which it was brought. She argued that “fundamental science” makes it impossible to identify any person as transgender with absolute certainty, adding that it was “technically difficult” to prove someone’s transgender identity through a birth certificate.