Parliament Passes Transgender Persons Amendment Bill Seeking To Omit Self-Determination Of Gender

The Parliament has passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.

The Rajya Sabha today passed the Bill, which was cleared by the Lok Sabha yesterday, by a voice vote. A motion moved by DMK MP Thiruchi Siva to refer the Bill to a select committee was negatived.

A controversial amendment proposed by the Bill is to take away the right of self-determination of gender. The Bill omits persons with "self-perceived gender identities" from the definition of "transgender person."

The Bill seeks to narrow the definition of “transgender person”, modify the procedure for recognition of gender identity, and introduce stricter penal provisions for offences involving forced conversion of individuals into transgender identities through mutilation or coercion.

Major changes in the transgender bill

In the 2019 Act, a transgender person has been defined as "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".

The definition has now been replaced with "(i) a person having such socio-cultural identities as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta, or eunuch, or a person with intersex variations specified below or a person who, at birth, has a congenital variation in one or more of the following sex characteristics as compared to male or female development:— (a) primary sexual characteristics; (b) external genitalia; (c) chromosomal patterns; (d) gonadal development; (e) endogenous hormone production or response, or such other medical conditions; or

(ii) any person or child who has been, by force, allurement, inducement, deceit or undue influence, either with or without consent, compelled to assume, adopt, or outwardly present a transgender identity, by mutilation, emasculation, castration, amputation, or any surgical, chemical, or hormonal procedure or otherwise:

Provided that it shall not include, nor shall ever have been so included, persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities.'"

Under Sections 5 and 6 of the 2019 Act, read with the Transgender Persons(Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, a transgender person could submit a form(as attested in the Act) and, based on that form, accompanied by an affidavit declaring the gender identity, the District Magistrate was responsible for issuing the certification of identity. It did not require any medical or physical examination as per Rule 4 of the 2020 Rules.

If the person has undergone a medical intervention towards a gender affirming procedure, then such a person may apply along with a certificate issued to that effect by a Medical Superintendent or Chief Medical Officer of the medical institution concerned. Based on this, the District Magistrate could issue a revised certificate of identity as per Section 7.

Now, the 2026 amendment requires that the District Magistrate can only issue a certificate after examining the recommendation of the "authority", which is a Medical Board, headed by a Chief Medical Officer or a Deputy Chief Medical Officer, as may be appointed either by the Central Government or the State Government of the UT administration.  

Even after the recommendation of the Medical Board, if the District Magistrate considers it, he can take the assistance of other medical experts. Who these medical experts are has not been defined under the Amendment Act.

Amendments have also been made to Section 7, which makes it mandatory for a transgender person to make an application to the District Magistrate after a gender affirming surgery. It has also now become mandatory for the medical institution concerned to furnish details of such persons to the District Magistrate as per clause (1A), which has been inserted into Section 7. 

Apart from this, Section 18 has also been amended, and various punishments have been added, such as if a person kidnaps or abducts any adult and causes him to undergo a hormonal or surgical procedure with the intent to impose a transgender identity against the will or consnet will be punished for a minimum of 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakh. 

Similarly, if a child is kidnapped and made to indulge in this, the person may be punished with rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5 lakh. Both these sections also include the term "undue influence," which may be widely used against the transgender community because of the societal stereotypes prevailing. 

What the Parliamentarians have to say about the Bill

Renuka Chowdhury of the Indian National Congress from Telangana asked: "All of us are gathered today and have the privilege of sitting in the Parliament, in Rajya Sabha, having been selected by the Council of States. I want to know, when we enter, we fill out a form where we are identified by our gender. All of you have been self-declared; you have declared whether you are a man or a woman. Has any medical board endorsed that? Since we are to be considered privileged that nobody can question us about our gender identity, but we will question the transgender and empower policing of the States, that they will go and identify a human being who has the same constitutional right as you and I?"

She also claimed that Justice Asha Menon's committee had met recently, but none of the seven Secretaries to the Union Government attended the meetings. 

"Did the Centre constitute any kind of consultation or discussion with the citizens of the country who are known as transgender?...Do they even know the meaning of LGBTQIA+?" she asked.

Saket Gokhale of the All India Trinamool Congress said  "I will tell you how the government makes bill. They don't listen to the people who are going to be affected by it. They look at social media, and that too what is happening in America because we have surrendered to Donald Trump. If Donald Trump says there are two genders, our government will say there are two genders. We don't mind if we are going back in time. This country has a glorious history allowing people to recognise their gender identify but if now Trump has said it, he must have thought it through," Gokhale said.

"This Bill is nothing but trashy colonial legislation," he added. He said that as per the 2011 Census, the transgender population is supposed to be around 5 lakh, but only 32,000 have applied for identity cards because most of them are afraid to come out. He also stated that 31% of transgender persons have attempted suicide, 50% of whom attempted before the age of 20.

Professor Manoj Kumar from the Rashtriya Janata Dal quoted the 1984 Book by George Orwell and philosopher Michel Foucault and questioned why there is no rights-based approach followed by the government. He also asked why the government brought the amendment in the middle of a war. "I don't understand why the government has a problem with a rights-based approach? In every legislation, the government is trying to end the rights-based approach."

Priyanka Chaturvedi, from Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), questioned how the government can decide for 5 lakh transgender persons when there has been no multi-stakeholder consultation. She stated that although 32,000 applications of transgender identity card were accepted, around 5,500 have been rejected, and there is no reason available for the rejection in the public domain. Similarly, if the medical board is to take a decision and reject the identity of a transgender person, this will violate their right to dignity.