When the Supreme Court recognised the right to self-identify one's gender in the 2014 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v Union of India judgement, it was celebrated as a watershed moment for transgender rights in India. But activists say a new amendment to the transgender persons law could reverse that progress — replacing self-identification with medical scrutiny and narrowing who the law recognises as transgender.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 13 by Union Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Virendra Kumar, proposes significant changes to the existing 2019 Act. Community groups and legal experts argue that the amendment weakens the principle of gender self-determination affirmed in the Supreme Court ruling, erases trans men, non-binary people, and others who fall outside its newly narrowed categories, and places transgender people under unprecedented state and medical scrutiny. Opposition has come swiftly — from community organisations, legal advocates, the CPI(M) Polit Bureau, and gender rights coalitions across the country — all demanding immediate withdrawal.

What the Bill actually says

The 2019 Act defined 'transgender person' broadly — encompassing trans men, trans women, persons with intersex variations, genderqueer individuals, and those with socio-cultural identities such as kinnar, hijra, aravani and jogta. Crucially, Section 4(2) guaranteed the right to self-perceived gender identity.

The 2026 Bill dismantles this in one sweep. 

The new definition limits recognition to those with specific socio-cultural identities — kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta — or those with specified intersex variations. Trans men, trans women, and genderqueer are removed from the definition entirely. A proviso explicitly states the law “shall not include, nor shall ever have been so included, persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities.” 

Further, section 4(2), the right to self-perceived gender identity, is deleted entirely. 

For those without a socio-cultural identity, the only remaining route to recognition is to have already undergone a medical procedure — surgery and hormones. Further, activists also point out that the Bill's Statement of Objects and Reasons is unambiguous. The law's purpose is stated as: "was and is not to protect each and every class of persons with various gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities," but only those facing exclusion "due to biological reasons for no fault of their own."

"From the beginning, they have always had some super-Brahmanical, patriarchal idea of who we are," says Grace Banu, a prominent trans activist from Tamil Nadu who has led the fight

for reservation rights. "In 2016, they said transgender means partially male, not partially female. Now they have come back with the same idea. We said we are transgender persons. Now they are telling us we are only hijra, aravani — and they haven't even used the right names. Why is 'aravani' listed, when that is like a dead name for the community? In Tamil Nadu, even official government records use Thirunangai [Tamil word for trans woman]. Why have they left out Thirunangai and Thirunambi [Tamil word for trans man] entirely?"

The answer, Grace Banu suggested, is ideological. "This is a complete Hindutva bill. It imposes their ideology on us without our consent. Hijra and Kinnar appear in their texts — so they get listed. Our identities do not fit their imagination, so we are erased."

'Where do we fit?': Erasing trans men, non-binary people, and the AFAB community

The redefinition's most immediate victims are trans men and anyone assigned female at birth (AFAB) who is gender-diverse. No socio-cultural identity exists for trans men........

© newslaundry