3 min readNew DelhiMar 25, 2026 03:44 AM IST
THE TRANSGENDER Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, which contains significant amendments in the law related to the identity, rights and welfare of transgender individuals, was passed in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday amid objections and demands from the Opposition to send it to a standing committee for further scrutiny.
Opposition MPs, who questioned the need to amend the existing provisions and also the “haste” with which it was tabled, later staged a walkout, terming it regressive.
At the end of the discussion on The Finance Bill, 2026, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju sought the sense of the House to take up the proposed law, referring to the need to address concerns around it expressed by Opposition members during a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee.
As Opposition leaders asked for it to be referred to a standing committee, Rijiju sought to clarify that extensive discussions on it had already taken place for a year as part of the proceedings of a standing committee and not many “significant” amendments were being sought to it.
Following this, the Bill was taken up for consideration during a three-hour discussion after being tabled by Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment Virendra Kumar.
Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi termed the proposed law “a brazen attack” on rights and identity of transgenders. “The BJP government hasn’t consulted the trans community and brought a Bill which stigmatises rather than protects them…This BJP government is violating our Constitution and destroying India’s rich history of honouring transgender communities in pursuit of its narrow ideas. The Congress party unequivocally opposes this Bill,” he said in an X post.
Samajwadi Party MP Anand Bhadauria said the Bill provided a narrow definition of a transgender person by excluding categories such as trans-men, trans-masculine, trans-women, gender-queer, non-binary among others.
Story continues below this ad
Alleging that it sought to “replace Constitutional morality with administrative supersession”, DMK MP T Sumathy termed it a “Constitutional regression”.
Opposing the Bill, Trinamool Congress MP June Maliah said, “The most alarming provision is the removal of the right to self-identification…this Bill is not bringing progress, it is taking rights away.”
NCP (SP) Baramati MP Supriya Sule questioned the urgency with which the Bill had been brought to Parliament. “There is no urgency. The biggest important point is that the community has not been consulted widely,” she said.
Replying to the debate, Kumar said, “Provisions have been brought to ensure security for those individuals who, due to their biological condition, face severe social ostracization for no fault of their own…along with giving legal rights, this law also provides respect and dignity.”
Story continues below this ad
“We want to ensure that transgender people live with equality, get the same rights that others get; India has moved swiftly in this direction compared to many western nations…These steps are in line with our comprehensive attempt to help all sections of society, especially for those who have been left behind, so that everyone gets their respective pride of place,” he added.
