The general expectation from a new law would be that it would be more progressive than the previous one. But the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, which was recently introduced in Lok Sabha, belies such expectations. In seeking to amend the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the new bill is being widely criticised for being regressive. Moreover, it lacked wider stakeholder consultation and adequate public debate.
The proposed change, which has met with serious opposition, is the disallowing of self-identification and instead imposing a process of medical scrutiny. Generally, the justification offered is plugging leakages in services and misuse of benefits by persons who do not qualify. While self-identification is based on the principle of agency and inclusion, the medical scrutiny stems from distrust and exclusion. And, it clearly goes against the landmark Supreme Court ruling on this issue. The domain of sexuality and sexual minorities is far more complex, and any effort to slot it into boxes decided by the government and its bureaucrats would be counterproductive. In the process, categories like trans men, non-binary people, and others would get excluded and would be deprived of legal rights, benefits and protection. The 2019 Act is more encompassing and inclusive, covering trans men, trans women, persons with intersex variations, genderqueer individuals, besides socio-cultural identities such as kinnar, hijra, aravani and jogta. In contrast, the 2026 Bill tries to restrict it to the latter only.
Making people forcibly go through medical scrutiny on such an intimate aspect tends to be invasive and coercive, oblivious of the discourse and emerging ground realities. Rejection of transgender identities that are not strictly biological is a narrow view that is not in sync with the times. Many people are now becoming conscious of their sense of self and gender expressions, which are at variance with the sex assigned at birth. Ignoring the self-experience and self-identification and giving undue importance to medical transition and physical and physiological characteristics can be problematic.
The Bill identifies a number of criminal activities or offences which are indicative of trafficking and includes forcing people into bonded labour, causing them to leave their household or village and kidnapping. While no one would oppose such a proposition and in fact would actively seek them, the worry is about how it will be construed or interpreted and implemented by enforcement authorities. There is a clear or perceived danger of authorities going after the support networks of transgender people, while the bad actors go scot-free. As it is, the community faces exclusion and marginalisation, and the only thing that provides some support and solace is the support networks, which could face the wrath of the ambiguous provisions of law implemented by officials who are not sufficiently sensitised.
One may not doubt the intentions of the government, but it is important for the community to demand adherence to human rights frameworks in developing transgender-inclusive laws. Insistence on medical scrutiny goes against the Yogyakarta principles. The emphasis of lawmaking should be on destigmatising sexual identities, and legal recognition helps. Laws should be enabling and facilitating in spirit, and the government’s role should not be limited to just making laws. Enduring change requires gently nudging people to embrace new values.