- Dalit trans activist Grace Banu criticised the new transgender bill as invasive and humiliating
- The Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, 2026, replaces self-identification with medical certification
- Opposition leaders and activists called the Bill regressive and a rollback of transgender rights
"Strangers probing our bodies, demanding proof of who we are, our privacy shattered, our dignity crushed. Who gave anyone the right to decide my gender for me?" Dalit trans activist Grace Banu set the tone for a public hearing in the national capital with these words.
Members of India's queer community have accused the government of trying to snatch hard-won rights through the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. About 100 members of the LGBTQI+ community and their supporters gathered at the Press Club of India yesterday for a Jan Sunwai (public hearing).
The public hearing was organised by Rachnatmak Congress, the opposition party's platform to engage with civil society groups. The protesters held banners with messages like "Bill toh kacha hai ji" and "No pride for some of us without liberation for all of us".
Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment, Dr Virendra Kumar, introduced the Bill in the Lok Sabha on March 13. Officials say the objective of the Bill is to correct loose definitions in the 2019 Act. They say the proposed law will better identify and protect the most marginalised - hijra, kinnar, aravani, jogta, and intersex individuals - who face lifelong exclusion due to biology, not choice. It tightens eligibility for benefits, adds stricter penalties for abduction, forced gender change, or violence against transgender persons and children. But transgender rights groups, lawyers, and opposition MPs call it a dangerous rollback.
A transgender person is someone whose gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth - an internal sense of self that may not align with biological markers. The 2014 NALSA judgment affirmed their right to self-identify without invasive verification. The proposed amendments, however, would replace that principle with medical and administrative approval, a shift activists say reduces identity to certification.
What The Bill Says
The Bill seeks to give a precise definition of the term "transgender" and provide graded punishments that reflect the gravity of the harm inflicted upon transgenders. It says a transgender person "shall not include, nor shall ever have been so included, persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities".
The Bill says it is imperative to give a precise definition for proper and definitive identification and protection of transgender persons, to whom the benefits of the present law must reach.
The protection and benefits that are provided under the present 2019 law are vast in nature and care has to be taken that "such identification cannot be extended based on any acquirable characteristics or personal choice or claimed self-perceived identity of an individual", the Bill states.
The bill notes that over the course of time, during the implementation of transgender protection law, "certain doubts and difficulties have arisen and are likely to arise" regarding the "expanse of the definition" of transgender persons.
Return To "Medical Scrutiny"
At the heart of the backlash is the Bill's proposal to replace self-identification of gender with mandatory certification by medical boards. "This is not protection, but violation. Our bodies are not evidence to be examined," Banu said, recounting how trans persons have historically been forced to undress before panels to "prove" their identity. "We demand recognition without invasion, rights without humiliation."
The speakers at the hearing described such provisions as institutionalising humiliation. Trans man and social worker Samar Sharma said medical boards "strip people of their dignity" and create "surveillance on our identity", worsening mental health and deterring individuals from seeking legal recognition.
Opposition Demands Rollback
Several Opposition leaders joined the hearing, warning that the Bill undermines Constitutional guarantees. Calling the Bill unfit even for a standing committee review, RJD's Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Kumar Jha said, "It should be thrown into the dustbin", and urged protests beyond Parliament. "This will be won only on the roads."
CPM's Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas questioned the government's shift in stance, recalling earlier statements by Prime Minister Narendra Modi supporting dignity for transgender persons. "Why has that sentiment suddenly changed?" he asked, warning that exclusionary policies would deepen fear among those already hesitant to come out.
Sandeep Dikshit, Congress leader and chairperson of Rachnatmak Congress, emphasised that the issue transcends party lines. "This is not about party politics but the politics of rights and justice," he said.
Anish Gawande, national spokesperson of the NCP (SP) and a member of the queer community, called the Bill "illegal, unconstitutional, illogical". He reiterated the principle: "Nothing about us without us."
Rajya Sabha MP Renuka Chowdhury warned that if Parliament fails to address these concerns, protests will intensify nationwide. Speaking to NDTV, she said, "Medical experts are not sensitised, district magistrates are overburdened and under-resourced, and there's widespread ignorance about the true definition and lived realities of transgender people. If those in power have any self-respect, they must scrap this bill immediately. If not, it will escalate into a full-blown catastrophe, and we as opposition leaders will take to the streets, campaigning aggressively in every election-bound state."
Senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor labelled the Bill "deeply regressive". In a post on X, he said the Bill was tabled "surreptitiously and without proper stakeholder consultation". "The Bill appears to represent a fundamental reversal of the rights-based framework established after the Supreme Court's landmark NALSA (2014) judgment. The amendments delete Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act, which guaranteed the right to self-perceived gender identity, and replace it with systems of medical board verification and bureaucratic certification before identity can be recognised," Tharoor stated.
Fears Of Erasure Loom
Activists warned that the Bill's narrow definition of "transgender person" -- focusing on specific socio-cultural identities such as hijra, kinner or aravani, or medically recognised intersex variations -- could exclude large sections of the community.
Krishanu, a trans researcher, said the amendments risk "erasure of intersex people" and criminalisation of chosen families and support systems. "There is no part of the Bill that the community accepts," he said.
Others echoed concerns that bureaucratic gatekeeping by district magistrates would make identity recognition inaccessible, especially in smaller towns lacking sensitisation or resources.
The Jan Sunwai in Delhi is part of a nationwide protest amplified by hashtags like #RejectTransBill2026 and #NoGoingBack. The Bill is to be discussed in Parliament on March 24.
