Transgender Rights Amendment Gets Presidential Assent: Key Changes and Big Concerns of the Bill Explained

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 has received the assent of President Droupadi Murmu, clearing the way for it to become law on a date to be notified by the central government.The bill seeks to give a precise definition of the term "transgender" and exclude "different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities" from the ambit of the proposed law. It 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 intent, object and purpose of the act is and was to protect a specified class of persons socially and culturally known as transgender people who face societal discrimination

of an extreme and oppressive nature. The purpose was and is not to protect each and every class of persons with various gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities," the bill says.The revised definition narrows the scope of the law compared to the 2019 Act, which had adopted a broader, more inclusive understanding of gender identity.

The amendment also introduces a system in which an authority or a government-appointed medical board plays a role in determining whether a person qualifies as transgender for legal recognition. This marks a shift from the earlier framework that emphasised self-identification following the Supreme Court’s 2014 NALSA judgment.The government has defended the changes, saying they are necessary to ensure the law effectively targets those who need protection. Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Virendra Kumar said during parliamentary debates that the legislation seeks to provide safeguards to individuals facing discrimination due to biological factors and to integrate them into mainstream society.The bill also introduces graded punishments for offences against transgender persons, including bodily harm, as part of its protective provisions.However, the amendment has drawn strong criticism from opposition parties, legal experts and members of the transgender community, who argue that it dilutes key rights established under earlier legal frameworks.One major point of contention is the removal of self-identification as the basis for legal recognition. Critics say requiring approval from a medical board effectively reintroduces medical scrutiny into gender identity, which the Supreme Court had earlier rejected as a violation of privacy and dignity.

Gargi, a Kothi person and doctor, noted in an interview with the Leaflet that the proposed process is largely unworkable in practice. “Would these specialist doctors and surgeons go and save their patients on a day-to-day basis in emergencies, or will all these doctors convene together?” she said. “At maximum they will come together six months once, or yearly once and until then the trans person has to wait.” Another criticism relates to the narrowing of the definition of transgender persons. By excluding sexual orientations and certain gender identities, opponents argue the law leaves out individuals who were previously recognised, potentially affecting access to legal protections and welfare benefits.There are also concerns about the impact on existing identity certificates issued under the 2019 Act. The amendment does not clearly address whether those already recognised under the earlier law will retain their status.Activists and advocacy groups have further raised concerns about provisions that criminalise inducing someone to present as transgender, warning that broadly worded clauses could inadvertently target families, healthcare providers and support networks.Several opposition members had demanded that the bill be referred to a parliamentary committee for wider consultations, arguing that it was introduced and passed without sufficient engagement with stakeholders, including the National Council for Transgender Persons.The bill passed in the Rajya Sabha via a voice vote, rejecting amendments suggested by the opposition. The House did not support calls from the opposition to send the bill to a select committee.Several members participated in the debate, including Amar Pal Maurya (BJP), Renuka Chowdhury (Congress), Fauziya Khan (NCP-SP), Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD), Saket Gokhale (TMC) and Tiruchi Siva (DMK). Some members pressed for sending the bill to the select committee.AAP MP Swati Maliwal remarked that gender inequality for transgender persons must be urgently addressed. She raised concerns regarding a provision in the bill that criminalises alluring someone to present as transgender, calling it vague and potentially harmful, as it could target families, doctors, and the support systems of the transgender community."Instead of protection, we may create outright fear. Today, we must stand up with those pushed to the margins for centuries. We must send this bill to the select committee and hold larger consultations because dignity delayed is dignity denied," she said.CPI (M) MP John Brittas also urged the government to refer the bill to a select or standing committee. SP MP Jaya Bachchan requested that the bill be withdrawn and reintroduced after consideration in the Monsoon session for further discussion.