Transgender Bill explained: A new amendment introduced in Parliament proposes major changes to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, including removing the right to gender self-identification recognised by the Supreme Court in the landmark National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India in 2014 and introducing medical certification for identity recognition.

Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment Virendra Kumar introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, on Friday (March 13). The move has drawn criticism from transgender and LGBT+ groups across the country. Here is what to know.

The 2019 Act defined a transgender person as one whose gender does not match the gender assigned to that person at birth. These include a bouquet of identities –

This definition aligns with the definition used by the Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations for Human Rights, describing transgender as an umbrella term for those people “whose sense of their own gender is different to the sex that they were assigned at birth”.

This definition establishes a distinction between sex, which refers to one’s biological status as male or female based on one’s anatomy, chromosomes, and hormone prevalence, and gender, a social construct that determines roles, behaviours, and attributes that society deems acceptable for men and women. Hence, one’s ‘gender identity’, or a person’s sense of self and their gender, may or may not correlate with the sex assigned at birth.

What the 2014 judgement entailed

In NALSA v Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court did two things: One, it recognised the transgender community as the “third gender” and affirmed equal applicability of fundamental rights under the Constitution to trans persons. Two, it affirmed the right of self-identification of gender, meaning a person could identify as male, female or third gender.

The apex court subsequently directed the central government to frame relevant laws to ensure legal recognition to the transgender community as the third gender and also to take steps for their welfare. In 2019, the central government implemented the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, which provided for the legal recognition of the community.

In practice, this meant the inclusion of the third gender (other) in all official forms, as well as the establishment of a mechanism to distribute transgender identity cards. These cards allowed individuals to be legally recognised as the third gender and also protected their rights. The Ministry of Social Justice also formed the Transgender Welfare Board, with the states following suit.

The Transgender Certificate and Identity Cards, one of the most important schemes resulting from the 2019 Act, allow trans persons to access various government welfare schemes. According to the National Portal for Transgender Persons, 32,424 such cards have been issued to date.

Changes proposed by the 2026 amendment

The government has presented the latest amendment as a bid to “protect only those who face severe social exclusion due to biological reasons for no fault of their own and no choice of their own.” This understanding reverts to a pre-2014 understanding of transgender identity, relying heavily on biological characteristics as the parameter for eligibility.

NARROWER DEFINITION: The definition of a transgender person under the bill is largely restrictive, recognising only one subset from the 2019 bill: Those with socio-cultural identities (kinner, hijra, aravani, jogta, eunuch) or persons born with specific congenital biological variations, a narrower, medicalised list replacing the open-ended intersex reference: primary sexual characteristics, external genitalia, chromosomal patterns, gonadal development, endogenous hormone production or response.

The bill also creates a new and distinct category: any person or child who has been compelled — by force, allurement, inducement, deceit, or undue influence — to assume a transgender identity through mutilation, emasculation, castration, amputation, or surgical, chemical, or hormonal procedure.

NO MORE SELF-IDENTIFICATION: The bill also does away with Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act, which enshrined the right to self-identify. It says the Act was not intended to protect “each and every class of persons with various gender identities, selfperceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities.” The bill claims that the 2019 definition was “vague” and made it “impossible to identify the genuine oppressed” intended beneficiaries, making the “operation and enforcement of several provisions under penal, civil and personal laws unworkable.”

MEDICAL BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION: Under the 2019 Act, the process of issuing transgender identity cards was administrative. A transgender person applied to the District Magistrate and received a certificate of identity, without any need for a medical examination or other clinical gate-keeping.

The bill calls for the formation of a medical board headed by a Chief Medical Officer or a Deputy Chief Medical Officer, at the centre or state/UT level. This board will now be tasked with making recommendations to the DM, which the latter must consider, along with the advice of other medical experts where relevant, before issuing a certificate of identity.

While the Act did not place any minimum qualifications for eligibility to serve on the National Council for Transgender Persons, established in 2020, the Bill posits that the state/UT representatives on the Board must now have a minimum rank of Director in the relevant Ministry or Department.

SCALE OF PUNISHMENT: The Act authorised punishments ranging from six months to two years of prison time, plus a fine, for pushing a trans person into forced or bonded labour, denying access or right of passage to a public place, forcing a trans person to leave their place of residence, household or village; and for causing harm, injury, or endangerment — physical, mental, sexual, verbal, emotional, or economic.

The Bill expands on this and introduces four more clauses, each liable to attract rigorous imprisonment. The offence of kidnapping an adult with grievous hurt or permanent injury to force assumption of transgender identity, under the bill, will attract a minimum 10 years of RI, extendable to life, plus a minimum fine of Rs 2 lakh. The same offence against a child is RI for life and a minimum fine of Rs 5 lakh.

Similarly, for forcing an adult to present as transgender and engage in begging, servitude, or bonded labour, the bill suggests five to 10 years RI, plus a minimum fine of Rs 1 lakh. The same offence against a child can attract 10-14 years RI, plus a minimum fine of Rs 3 lakh.

Criticism of the bill

Transgender persons and activists who are working in the field of rights of the marginalised have said the amendment has taken away the basic freedom and right of self-determination of gender from the individual.

Kadambari Shaikh, a transgender activist from Pune, said the stripping of the freedom to choose their identity is a major violation of human rights. “Our identity should not need approval from others. It is something we live every day. Any change in the law must protect this right and support the freedom and dignity of transgender persons,” she said.

The present amendment, Anil Ukarande, founder of Yutak, a trust which works for sexual minorities, explained, has put the onus on the individual to “prove” their identity, which should never be the case. “The amendment has talked about a medical board and asked hospitals to submit documents before the certificate is issued. For a transgender person, this would be very difficult, given the deep transphobia which still exists in society,” he said.

Ukarande and other activists said the present amendment has allowed recognition only of transgender persons from certain “socio-cultural” backgrounds. “The age-old guru-chela system allows individuals protection and fosters a sense of community. But they are also centres of power as well as exploitation — many individuals have transitioned without being part of the socio-cultural systems. This amendment puts a question mark over them,” he said.