The story so far: Twelve years after the Supreme Court of India recognised the transgender identity and laid down that “self-determination of gender is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression”, falling within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India, the Union government on Friday (March 13, 2026) introduced a Bill in Lok Sabha to take away transgender people’s “right to self-perceived gender identity”, and redefine a “transgender person” by proposing amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. Transgender community leaders, activists, and people across the country reacted to the amendments with shock, arguing that it went against the fundamental principle that their struggle for recognition had been for.
What are the changes being brought about?
The key changes being proposed have to do with the definition of a “transgender person” and the expansion of the section on offences against transgender people and punishments for them.
In the amendment Bill, the Union government has called for the omission of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, which says, “A person recognised as transgender under sub-section (1) shall have a right to self-perceived gender identity.”
In addition to this, a new definition has been proposed for transgender people, which describes them as people “having such socio-cultural identities as kinner, hijra, aravani, and jogta, or eunuch”, people with intersex variations, and people who have “congenital variations” compared to the “male or female development” in their “primary sexual characteristics, external genitalia, chromosomal patterns, gondal development, endogenous hormone production or response or such other medical conditions”.
It goes on to say that any person or child who was “compelled to assume, adopt, or outwardly present a transgender identity, by mutilation, emasculation, castration, amputation, or any surgical, chemical, or hormonal procedure or otherwise” would also be included in this definition. However, it adds that this definition shall not include “persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities”.
Compared to this definition, the Act currently defines transgender people as someone “whose gender does not match with the gender assigned to that person at birth and includes trans-man or trans-woman (whether or not such person has undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery or hormone therapy or laser therapy or such other therapy), person with intersex variations, genderqueer and person having such socio-cultural identities as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta.”
Further, a specific definition for “people with intersex variations” has also been proposed to be omitted.
Apart from these, the proposed amendments suggest introducing the terminology for “authority”, defining it as “a medical board, headed by a Chief Medical Officer or a Deputy Chief Medical Officer, as may be appointed by the Central Government, State Government or Union territory Administration”.
Another key amendment has been proposed to the Section on the issuance of transgender certificates. While the law currently mandates the District Magistrate to issue a certificate in accordance with the procedure, the proposed amendment requires the DM to “examine the recommendation of the authority”, and decide if “he considers it necessary or desirable, after taking the assistance of other medical experts”, before issuing a certificate.
Further, a new section has been proposed, which confers the right of transgender people to have their first names changed in birth certificates and other identification documents, with the caveat that the person should be a “transgender person” as per the new proposed definition. The amendment Bill also compels a transgender person to apply for a revised gender certificate after having undergone Sex-Reassignment Surgery (SRS), as opposed to the current law, which leaves it up to the person.
Additionally, a new section has been proposed, which also compels medical institutions performing SRS to furnish details about the procedures to the District Magistrate.
Apart from this, the amendment proposed to the section on offences and penalties has been significantly expanded, with crimes against transgender persons and children being included and graded punishments prescribed, ranging from rigorous imprisonment to life term and fines of up to Rs 5 lakh.
How did the Amendment Bill come about?
Union Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar on Friday introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, in Lok Sabha. A few days before this, media reports cited that the Union Cabinet had approved certain amendments to the 2019 Act, but with no information on the nature of these amendments. It remains unclear as to how long the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and the Union government had been preparing to bring these amendments.
Transgender activists like Tamil Nadu-based Grace Banu, who was among the leaders who had been central to the drafting of the 2019 Act and the struggle for this legislation, have told The Hindu that these amendments seem to have been brought in with no consultation with members of the transgender community. Other community leaders and members who have started condemning the proposed amendments have expressed “shock” as their first reaction and called the changes “sudden”.
Interestingly, hours before Mr. Kumar introduced the amendment Bill, at 9 a.m. on March 13, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had made a post on the social media platform X, promoting the 2019 version of the Act and advertising the fact that this Act allowed the right to self-perceived gender identity as a key feature. A few days back, on March 4, the Ministry had posted, “The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, safeguards the rights and dignity of transgender persons.”
Further, in February this year, the National Council for Educational Research and Training had told the Supreme Court of India that it has taken great care to introduce teacher training modules specifically to build sensitivity towards “transgender issues”.
It substantiated this by saying that the 2024 module specifically spoke of the difference between gender and sexuality and discussed the idea that sex identity ascribed at birth may be at odds with a person’s perceived sex identity at a later stage. The NCERT had said that it had been conducting capacity building and training programmes based on similar modules till as late as November, 2025 and had also scheduled more sessions for later this year.
Why is there concern about the changes?
Among the principal concerns raised by members of the transgender community is the omission of the right to self-perceived gender identity, followed by the new definition that has been introduced in the amendment Bill, which goes against the principles laid down in the landmark 2014 NALSA judgement that recognised the transgender identity and the right to self-determination of gender identity.
Ms. Banu told The Hindu, “There is an issue that the government seems to be including only those in the definition of transgender who may have been accommodated in Hindutva’s history and is using terms that indicate Hindutva’s accommodation of transgender identity like ‘hijra, kinner, aravani, etc.” And there seems to be some sort of refusal to use respectful terms that have evolved for transgender people in other parts of the country, like in Tamil Nadu, where there is now a vocabulary of thirunagai and thirunambi.”
Dr. Aqsa Shaikh has raised the issue of transgender people across the country having to now deal with the existential question of whether they continue to remain transgender as per the proposed new definition, while another Delhi-based trasnwoman spoke of concerns that this might create divides within the community about who has legitimacy to use the transgender identity.
What does the NALSA judgement say about gender, sexuality, and self-identification of gender?
Since a Bench of Justices KS Radhakrishnan and AK Sikri delivered the landmark 2014 judgement in the National Legal Services Authority Vs Union of India case, the discussion on gender, sexuality, and self-identification of gender identity in this judgement has informed India’s understanding of these issues.
When the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, was introduced, the Statement of Objects and Reasons in it noted that it flowed from this very judgement of the Supreme Court, adding that one of the principal goals of bringing this Bill was to “confer right upon transgender persons to be recognised as such, and a right to self-perceived gender identity”.
In the judgement that notably recognised a third gender beyond male and female, and the fundamental right of persons to self-determination of gender identity, the court accepted the principle that the concepts of gender and sexuality are different and that gender identity is on a spectrum.
In the judgement penned by Justice KS Radhakrishnan, the Supreme Court said, “Gender identity is one of the most fundamental aspects of life which refers to a person’s intrinsic sense of being male, female or transgender or transsexual person.”
The judgement goes on to explain: “A person’s sex is usually assigned at birth, but a relatively small group of persons may born with bodies which incorporate both or certain aspects of both male and female physiology. At times, genital anatomy problems may arise in certain persons, their innate perception of themselves, is not in conformity with the sex assigned to them at birth and may include pre and post-operative transsexual persons and also persons who do not choose to undergo or do not have access to operation and also include persons who cannot undergo successful operation.”
On the other hand, the court said on sexual orientation (or sexuality): “Sexual orientation refers to an individual’s enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction to another person.”
“Each person’s self-defined sexual orientation and gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom, and no one shall be forced to undergo medical procedures, including SRS, sterilization or hormonal therapy, as a requirement for legal recognition of their gender identity,” the court went on to hold.
Through the discussions, the court goes on to conclude, “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.”
Justice Sikri, in his judgement concurring with Justice Radhakrishnan, expands on this, saying, “If democracy is based on the recognition of the individuality and dignity of man, as a fortiori we have to recognize the right of a human being to choose his sex/gender identity which is integral his/her personality and is one of the most basic aspect of self-determination dignity and freedom.”
What is the government’s reasoning for the changes?
In the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Amendment Bill introduced in Lok Sabha on Friday, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment said that since the 2019 Act was enacted, “certain doubts and difficulties” had come up in implementing it with regard to the “definition of transgender persons and how the identification of such persons is to be done” – a crucial part of implementing the Act.
It noted that the existing definition of “transgender person” was “vague”, arguing that this made it “impossible to identify the genuine oppressed persons to whom the benefits of the Act are intended to reach”. It added that this existing definition makes the operation of several provisions of criminal, civil, and personal laws “unworkable”, further saying that this definition was “not compatible” with several statutory provisions enacted by both Parliament and State legislatures.
The government has argued that the intent of the legislative policy was always to “protect only those who face severe social exclusion due to biological reasons” for no fault or choice of their own. It went on to say that the purpose of the legislation was never to “protect each and every class of persons with various gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities”.
Noting these aspects, the government argues for a “precise” definition of transgender people, saying, “The protection and benefits that are provided under the Act are vast in nature, and therefore, care has to be taken that such identification cannot be extended on the basis of any acquirable characteristics or personal choice or claimed self-perceived identity of an individual.”
