On March 13, 2026, Virendra Kumar, the Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, proposed changes to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. Under the new bill, self-identification of gender would no longer be accepted. This, along with other key variations in 2026, has threatened trans folk who have been living with the provisions of the act. Read on to discover what the new amendment entails and why it has the LGBTQ+ community and its allies concerned.
What Are The Major Changes Per The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026?
In 2014, the groundbreaking NALSA v. Union of India judgement was delivered by the Supreme Court. It said that “transgender” was a unique gender category with fundamental rights (under the Constitution) applying to them equally. Most importantly, the Court granted the right to self-identify as male, female, or third gender. This means they would be treated as such, under the law. Later, the court asked the Parliament to take legislative action. Consequently, the 2019 Act was a response to protect the identity and prevent discrimination against transgender individuals.
Twelve years on, the proposed amendments seek to take away this right of trans folk to self-identification. Under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, the definition of the word “transgender” is narrower than before. The 2019 judgment included self-identified trans men or women (irrespective of gender affirming surgery), intersex and genderqueer folk, and those with sociocultural identities as kinner, hijra, aravani, and jogta.
Proposed Amendments To The 2019 Transgender (Protection Of Rights) Act And Its Issues
However, the proposed 2026 amendment removes the important first category of self-identity. Keeping the intersex and sociocultural identities intact, it also seeks to remove the category of “genderqueer” individuals. Instead, a new category is added in the definition of transgender, those forced (chemically or otherwise) to take on a trans identity.
Explaining further, the bill goes on to say that the original act was to protect the trans individuals facing discrimination due to their socio-cultural identities or inherent biology, for “no fault of their own and no choice of their own.” Everyone else (including self-determined transgender folk) would not be offered the same protection.
Firstly, this implies that those who identify as trans (a different sex from the one assigned at birth) do not face any social exclusion. This is categorically untrue. From family acceptance to societal, the journey is neither simple nor straightforward.
Next, the new bill conflicts with the provisions of the landmark 2014 judgment. The main provision was self-identification, which is specifically removed from the proposed amendment. What, then, will happen to those who have already received certificates confirming their new gender and trans identity before the bill is passed?
Thirdly, it seems vague in saying who is actually included in the new definition after gender-affirming surgery. To obtain a certificate, one must now have permission from a new medical board. This would include a Chief (and Deputy) Medical Officer at various levels who would advise the District Magistrate on certificates.
Also Read: New Epstein Files: Jeffrey Allegedly Called A Blonde Woman ‘Mother Of His Child’
Many activists and queer allies have found the new amendments to exclude scores of trans folk. Already suffering discrimination, the lack of protection under the law is jarring. Hopefully, transgender individuals, activists, and legal counsel are consulted before the new amendments to the Transgender (Protection Of Rights) Act, 2019 are passed.
Also Read: Viral Video Of Old Bengaluru Woman Scolding Influencer Over Short Dress Surfaces, Internet Reacts