Opposition MPs, activists oppose amendments to Transgender Persons Act

Members of Parliament and officials of political parties from across the country on Sunday (March 22, 2026) spoke out against the Union government’s Bill to amend the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which proposes to remove the right to a self-perceived gender identity and introduces the requirement for a medical board to determine whether a person is transgender based on a new definition of “transgender person”.

At a public hearing held at the Press Club of India, Rajya Sabha MPs from the Rashtriya Janata Dal, Indian National Congress, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) spoke against the Bill and said that there was an attempt to coordinate a strategy to oppose it within Parliament. However, Manoj Kumar Jha, MP from the RJD, said, “This government is only afraid of the streets,” even as Renuka Chowdhury said that it would be an “uphill battle”. John Brittas said that while no formal meeting of political parties had taken place over the strategy to oppose the Bill, it is expected to be taken up in the next meeting of Opposition Parliamentarians.

At the public hearing, Congress leader Sandeep Dikshit was also present along with Anish Gawande, national spokesperson of the Nationalist Congress Party. Both opposed the Bill.

The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 13 by Union Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar. It proposes to redefine a “transgender person” and remove a section that currently recognises transgender people’s right to a self-perceived gender identity.

In the Bill, the government said the “existing vague definition” of transgender persons had made it “impossible to identify the genuine oppressed persons to whom the benefits of the Act are intended to reach”. It added that the purpose of the law was never to protect “persons with various gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities”. It said the policy “was and is” 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.”

The Bill also introduces the terminology of an “authority”, which would be a medical board constituted by the government. This “authority” would make a recommendation to the District Magistrate for the issuance of a transgender certificate. The Bill also proposes to give District Magistrates the discretion to decide if the transgender certificate is “necessary or desirable”. It also mandates that medical institutions conducting gender-affirming procedures share their details with district administrations.

On Sunday, Mr. Jha said that the only explanation for such a “regressive” Bill was that “This government’s thinking is regressive.” He added that Parliamentary Committees are a very important forum. “This Bill does not even deserve this,” he said. Mr. Jha also said that efforts are already under way among some Parliamentarians to oppose the Bill within the House. However, he said, “But this government has learned the art of manipulating Parliament. It is only afraid of the streets.”

Grace Banu, a Chennai-based trans rights activist and writer, also joined the public hearing in New Delhi, where she said, “Welfare measures do not empower my community. Rights do,” adding, “Self-determination of gender is a right.” Tan, a trans activist and community leader who works with communities in Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh, spoke of the difficulties of taking the existing laws to the last mile, noting, “Even now, our work begins with explaining district officials what the law is, when it was passed, when it was notified. This Bill has given us no fighting chance. That is why we have to assume the government is coming from a place of malice.”

Nikunj, a transman and leader of the Tapish Foundation in Madhya Pradesh, said that their fight is about the right to “stand up and say who we are.”

The Bill’s introduction drew sharp reactions from trans communities across India, including from queer groups that have historically aligned with the government on other policy matters. The Queer Hindu Alliance issued a statement expressing “deep concern” about the Bill and called for community consultation “not in the spirit of opposition, but in the spirit of samvad”. Other community leaders from north India associated with Kinnar Akharas of Sanatan Dharma, such as Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Radhikanand Giri in Mumbai, have also opposed the Bill.

The government recently met some members of the National Council for Transgender Persons, where it defended the Bill, citing “non-genuine transgender persons” as one of the reasons for limiting the definition in the amendments.