The Parliament passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, on Wednesday, following its passage in the Rajya Sabha through a voice vote. The Bill was tabled on March 13 by Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Virender Kumar. Despite unanimous demands from the Opposition to refer the Bill to a select committee, the government put it up for debate, eventually securing its passage in both Houses.
The new Bill proposes changes across four key themes: the definition of transgender persons, the process for issuing identity certificates, offences and penalties, and the composition of the National Council.
Crucially, the Bill’s Statement of Objects and Reasons is very clear in outlining the government’s stated rationale. It argues that the existing definition of the expression “transgender person” is vague, allegedly making it impossible to identify “genuine oppressed persons” for whom targeted benefits are intended.
It also goes on to say that the 2019 Act’s purpose was not to protect each and every class of persons with various gender identities, including “self-perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities”. It further says that care has to be taken that protections and benefits under the Act are not extended on the basis of “acquirable characteristics” or “personal choice” or “self-perceived identity”.
Key changes in the Act’s provisions
New definition: The Bill has replaced the older definitions to identify who is a transgender person, making it narrower and more limited in nature. These markers are divided into two categories. First, persons with either specific biological or intersex variations due to congenital variations at birth and those who have socio-cultural identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani, and jogta. These intersex variations included variations in chromosomes, genitalia, hormones, or sexual characteristics. Second, it includes persons or children who have been ‘forcibly’ made to present a transgender identity through mutilation, castration, or surgical or hormonal procedures against their will. Crucially, it specifically states that those with “different sexual orientations” and “self-perceived sexual identities” shall not be included.
Medical board for certification: Under the 2019 Act, a transgender person applied to the district magistrate for a certificate of identity. The Bill now inserts a medical board, headed by a chief medical officer, whose recommendation the district magistrate must examine before issuing a certificate. The district magistrate may also consult additional medical experts.
Stricter punishment: The Bill introduces a new set of offences targeting those who kidnap and physically harm people to force them into a transgender identity, often for trafficking into begging or servitude. Penalties are severe and classified by the victim’s age: kidnapping an adult and causing grievous injury for this purpose carries 10 years to life imprisonment and a minimum Rs 2 lakh fine; if the victim is a child, the sentence is mandatory life and a minimum Rs 5 lakh fine. Forcing a person to present as transgender and exploiting them in begging or servitude is punishable with 5-10 years of imprisonment if the victim is an adult, and 10-14 years if the victim is a child. The transgender community has expressed concern that this may be misused against them, making them vulnerable to false cases.
Story continues below this ad
Mandatory reporting by hospitals: Medical institutions where gender-change surgeries are performed must now furnish details of those surgeries to the district magistrate and the medical board. The Bill also makes obtaining a post-surgery gender certificate mandatory, rather than optional.
What are the major departures from the 2019 law?
At the heart of the 2019 Act was the definition that a person whose gender does not match the gender they were assigned at birth is a transgender person. It covered a wide spectrum, from trans-men, trans-women, non-binary, genderqueer persons to those with intersex variations, and specific socio-cultural identities. It did not rely on surgical or hormonal intervention.
The 2026 Bill departs completely from this core concept and strips the right to self-identify, omitting the relevant provision that enables self-determination.
With the addition of the new category, the identity of transgender persons has been narrowed to only two categories: either socio-cultural, biologically congenital, or one imposed forcibly. This excludes trans-men, trans-women, and genderqueer persons, who form a big chunk of the transgender community.
Story continues below this ad
The introduction of new procedures to obtain identity certificates, including external medical validation, is another crucial departure from the 2019 law. Even though a district magistrate’s approval was necessary as per the 2019 law, self-identification was included in the definitions. Now, a medical board will give recommendations to the district magistrate. The addition of offences and penalties against coercive changes to gender identity has been brought in ostensibly as a deterrent against trafficking.
Why has the Bill faced fierce opposition from the transgender community?
Erasure of identity due to the deletion of provisions related to self-determination is one of the biggest issues being raised by the transgender community against the government. Meanwhile, the introduction of a medical board and a new framework to approve identity certificates has been termed “medical gatekeeping”. Mumbai Queer Pride said in a statement earlier this week that the law was designed to erase them (transgender persons) under the guise of “medical scrutiny”.
The transgender community across the country has repeatedly pointed out that the Bill goes against the Supreme Court’s landmark NALSA vs Union of India judgment. The SC had noted that “self-determination of gender is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression and falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”. The NALSA judgment had recognised hijras and eunuchs as the third gender, and empowered transgender persons’ right to self-identified gender, including a direction to states to grant legal recognition of their gender identity.
Members of the community have also alleged that no consultations were held with them before the new Bill was introduced. The introduction of the medical board recommendation has been deemed an attack on the dignity of transgender persons. The Bill is also silent on a redressal mechanism for those whose applications seeking certificates of identity are rejected.
