Lok Sabha passes bill to amend law on protection and rights of transgenders amid protests

The Lok Sabha on Tuesday passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill amid opposition from transgender rights groups and Opposition.

Trans rights activists have termed as regressive the proposed Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, warning that it could undermine the identity, dignity and equality of such people.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill was introduced by Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Virendra Kumar on Friday.


Also Read: India introduces Bill to provide precise definition of 'transgender' in Lok Sabha

The proposed amendment has triggered criticism from members of the community who say it departs from principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India.

The bill seeking to give a precise definition of the term "transgender" and provide graded punishments that reflect the gravity of the harm inflicted upon such persons was introduced in the Lok Sabha earlier this month.

The bill underlines that a transgender person "shall not include, nor shall ever have been so included, persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities".

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill notes that it is imperative to give a precise definition for proper and definitive identification and protection of transgender persons, to whom the benefits of the present law must reach.

The protection and benefits that are provided under the present 2019 law are vast in nature and, therefore, care has to be taken that "such identification cannot be extended based on any acquirable characteristics or personal choice or claimed self-perceived identity of an individual".

The bill also contains provisions for "designation of an authority" which will have the option to seek "expert advice" if required.

A new clause defines "authority" as a medical board headed by a chief medical officer or a deputy chief medical officer appointed by the central government, state government or a Union territory administration.

Transgender rights activist Akkai Padmashali told PTI, "This bill is so stupid. This is so regressive. This is so anti-transgender, intersex people and highly unacceptable."

Padmashali said the provisions could further marginalise the community and create conditions that stigmatise transgender persons. "The major problems in the bill are that it has made the transgender community much more vulnerable and also suggests that we are being made re-criminals before the Constitution..."

She added that the 21st century is supposed to be about mainstreaming people's issues and not putting them in jail or harassing them in the name of the state.

Padmashali also objected to what she described as the narrow recognition of identities in the proposed framework.

"Accepting only cultural and traditional identities of Hijra, Kinner, Jogappa and Jogta and using the term eunuch is unacceptable. Eunuch is a derogatory term that has come from colonial times and does not represent the diversity of gender identities that exist today. Apart from traditional communities, there are many people who identify as intersex, female-to-male transgender, gender queer and other identities," she said.

Activist Meera Parida said the proposed amendments could infringe upon constitutional rights and create practical challenges for transgender persons.

"It doesn't at all align with constitutional rights — it infringes on our right to privacy. If you look at the section they want to bring in, it takes away our right to bodily autonomy and to live a life with dignity, all of which was recognised by the court in the NALSA judgment of 2014."