Transgender and queer people, collectives, and their allies in Pune have issued a strong condemnation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. Activists argue that the proposed legislation fundamentally undermines the dignity and constitutional protections guaranteed to the community.

Smriti, 26, a trans man and co-founder of the Pune Queer Collective, expressed alarm over the sudden introduction of the bill in Lok Sabha on March 13.

“The bill undermines the dignity and autonomy of transgender persons. We were clueless; it is alarming how this bill overturns the NALSA judgment without any consultation with the community,” Smriti told The Indian Express.

The NALSA judgment (National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, 2014) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court that formally recognised transgender persons as the “third gender”. Delivered on April 15, 2014, the ruling affirmed that the fundamental rights granted under the Indian Constitution apply equally to transgender individuals.

Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Dr Virendra Kuma introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, in Lok Sabha. The proposed legislation aims to narrow the definition of a transgender person and requires medical proof for legal recognition.

The Pune Queer Collective, which grew from 10 founding members to over 300 on its social media platforms, is now coordinating with national-level groups to organise protests against the bill.

“Our identity is non-negotiable, and there is no going back,” Smriti added.

Dr Manisha Gupte, co-convener of Mahila Sarvangeen Utkarsh Mandal, Pune, explained that as campaigners of gender justice, they strongly oppose the bill and call for its immediate withdrawal.

“The proposed amendments undermine the fundamental right to self-identify one’s gender, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the NALSA v. Union of India (2014) judgement. By mandating certification through medical boards and enabling bureaucratic scrutiny, the bill violates the rights to dignity, privacy, and autonomy.”

He said the amendments drastically narrow the definition of transgender persons, excluding trans men, non-binary, and gender-fluid individuals, thereby denying legal recognition to many.

“This represents a significant rollback of the inclusive principles enshrined in the 2019 Act. We urge the government to engage in meaningful consultation with transgender communities and experts, and to focus on ensuring access to employment, education, healthcare, and protection from violence. Any legal reform must uphold constitutional values and human rights, not erode them,” Dr Gupte said.

Shyam Konnur, the founder and CEO of the Mist LGBTQ Foundation, stated that self-identification is not a privilege that should be granted; it is a fundamental human right.

“When we replace a person’s lived truth with a clinical diagnosis or a bureaucratic stamp, we don’t just undermine the law—we undermine the very dignity of the human spirit. By removing the right to self-declaration, the administration demonstrates a profound lack of empathy and a misunderstanding of the transgender experience,” Konnur said.

According to Konnur, this bill risks erasing the identities of trans people and non-binary individuals, pushing the community back into the shadows of medical scrutiny and social exclusion. “We do not need to be ‘verified’ to exist; we need to be respected as equal citizens under the Constitution,” Konnur said.

According to the activists, the bill collapses intersex and transgender identities into one definition of “transgender persons”. They say that it merges intersex and transgender identities into a single restrictive definition, ignoring that many intersex people do not identify as trans and vice versa.

They claim that it limits legal recognition to specific traditional identities (Hijra, Kinnar, Aravani, Jogti), excluding thousands of trans men and genderqueer persons. The bill, they say, frames transgender identity as something potentially imposed through “coercion” or “undue influence,” shifting the law’s focus from protection to state-sanctioned surveillance and control.