The recent approval of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, by Droupadi Murmu has faced a lot of backlash, with human rights bodies accusing it of being a big step backward for transgender rights in India. Amnesty International has denounced this approval, calling it a “step backward for transgender rights in India,” saying it “undermines dignity, autonomy, and freedom of transgender and gender-diverse individuals.” The main reason for this backlash is the removal of the right to self-identification. Now, transgender persons have to go through official scrutiny to have their gender identity recognized. It is seen as a shift in focus from considering gender identity an intrinsic part of a person’s personality to having it validated by official bodies.
Aakar Patel called this a “dangerous precedent,” saying it “converts gender identity into something that is checked, certified, and controlled.” He further added that this approach “undermines existing protections and increases state overreach in the lives of transgender people.”
The amendment has also brought in a new, narrow definition of the term “transgender,” which only allows for certain socio-cultural or biological categories to be included in the definition. Moreover, the amendment has eliminated the separate classification of intersex persons, including them in the transgender category. This has caused alarm among activists and experts, as the distinction between biological sex characteristics and gender identity is an important one.
However, the new law has been criticized for going directly against the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the NALSA vs. Union of India case in 2014, in which the Supreme Court of India held that gender identity is a personal choice and dignity, and that an individual must not be compelled to go through medical procedures such as surgery or hormone therapy in order to gain legal recognition. The new law has also been criticized from the point of view of privacy, as it allows medical institutions to disclose information about gender-affirming procedures to the authorities, which can compromise the privacy of the members of the LGBTQ+ community, who are already vulnerable to social stigma and persecution in the country.
At the same time, the amendment also includes stringent criminal provisions. These provisions include the criminalization of individuals accused of “forcing” or “encouraging” an individual to live as transgender. These provisions extend to life imprisonment. There are apprehensions that this vague terminology could be used to crack down on families, networks, healthcare services, and traditional community formations.
In spite of protests from opposition leaders, activists, and even an expert committee constituted by the Supreme Court, the bill was rushed through Parliament without much deliberation. There are apprehensions about the legislation voiced even by judicial authorities. The Rajasthan High Court has cautioned that any legislation must not encroach on rights granted to transgender individuals by the judiciary.
Human rights organizations are now urging the Indian government to stop the implementation of the legislation and have more dialogue with transgender individuals. They argue that any legislation concerning marginalized communities must be “inclusive, transparent, and respectful of the rights to individual autonomy and human rights.”
Leave a comment