Transgender Rights Rollback Sparks Nationwide Outcry

Hyderabad: The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed by the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday evening, completing its journey through Parliament. The move came even as a Supreme Court-constituted advisory committee, led by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon, had earlier in the day urged the Centre to withdraw the Bill, arguing that its provisions run contrary to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2014 NALSA judgment.

The Bill had cleared the Lok Sabha on Tuesday through a voice vote amid an Opposition walkout, as protests continued nationwide. The amendments alter how gender identity is recognised in law, replacing self-identification with a certification process. The Union government has defended this as necessary, but critics argue it strips away a fundamental right.

Union minister for social justice and empowerment Virendra Kumar defended the legislation, stating it demonstrates the government’s commitment to protecting those who face severe social exclusion. He argued that the changes would prevent misuse of provisions meant for transgender persons and safeguard access to benefits. MP Pratap Chandra Sarangi (BJP) echoed this view, warning that unchecked self-identification could allow non-transgender individuals to claim rights intended for the community.

The amendment removes the phrase “a right to self-perceived gender identity” from the definition of a transgender person and introduces a certification process. Under this, a medical authority must recommend recognition, which the district magistrate then considers before issuing an identity certificate. Critics say this creates a burdensome two-stage institutional barrier between individuals and legal recognition.

The national LGBTQI+ collective 'Yes We Exist' condemned the move as a “dark day for India,” arguing that it strips legal recognition from trans men, non-binary persons, and trans women outside the Kinner-Hijra community. They said the amendment violates constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and privacy.

The backlash extended to the National Council for Transgender Persons, where member Kalki Subramaniam resigned, stating the Bill was passed without consulting community representatives. She described unanimous opposition across trans and intersex communities, calling the legislation a step backward.

Within the Hyderabad community, artist and activist Patruni Chidananda Sastry urged caution, saying the community should not rush to court challenges that might risk broader LGBTQIA+ rights. Instead, he called for consultation and strategic action.

Medical voices have also raised concerns. Dr Prachii Rathod, India’s first transgender MS orthopaedic surgery resident, said the medical community is neither equipped nor authorised to verify gender identity. “Gender identity is not a disease that needs to be diagnosed or treated. A person’s identity cannot be decided by the government or by doctors. It should be the individual’s choice,” she said. Rathod warned that requiring verification could push people into depression and deter them from coming forward.

The Bill also introduces documentation rules requiring those who undergo surgery to apply for revised certificates, with medical institutions sharing details with authorities. This creates a state record of identity and medical history. While the legislation retains penalties for denial of access, eviction, and abuse, it also adds stricter punishments. Kidnapping or causing harm to compel a transgender identity can mean ten years to life imprisonment, while forcing someone into such an identity or into begging or labour carries five to 10 years, rising to 10 to 14 if the victim is a child.

Kaushik Gupta, a lawyer at the Calcutta High Court, criticised Section 18 of the amendment, which provides for life imprisonment for forcibly mutilating genitalia or converting someone into a transgender person. He warned that this could become “a tool in the hands of the police to exploit the hijra population and gharanas and to persecute them on false accusations.” Gupta also argued that the amendment excludes trans men from protection under the law.

The passage of the Bill marks a significant shift in India’s legal framework for transgender rights, but it has sparked widespread opposition from activists, medical professionals, and community representatives, who say it undermines dignity and self-identification.