Members of the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP) have voiced strong opposition to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill 2026, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Friday, March 13. The members claim they were neither consulted nor informed about the Bill, which significantly narrows the definition of “transgender person” and removes the right to self-perceived gender identity.
Representing various regions and stakeholders, the council members are currently drafting a joint statement of objection and seeking an urgent audience with Union Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar to discuss the community’s concerns regarding the legislative shift toward medical and bureaucratic gatekeeping.
Sidelined and Silenced: The Call for Consultation
The introduction of the 2026 Amendment Bill has sent shockwaves through the transgender community, with NCTP members expressing deep disappointment over being bypassed in the legislative process. Kalki Subramaniam, a nominated member representing the southern region, warned that she would resign if the Bill becomes law in its current form, stating, “I cannot continue to serve in a body that is sidelined in such critical decisions.”
Other members, such as Rituparna Neog from the North-East and expert member Abhina Aher, highlighted that despite working with the government almost daily, the Bill was introduced “suddenly” and without transparency.
The proposed law introduces a medical board for identity certification and mandates that hospitals report gender-reassignment surgeries to the government measures that activists argue violate the 2017 Right to Privacy judgment and the 2014 NALSA verdict.
A Departure from Self-Identification
The 2026 Bill marks a fundamental shift from the 2019 Act by deleting Section 4(2), which recognized the right to a self-perceived gender identity. The government’s “Statement of Objects and Reasons” justifies this by claiming that the earlier definition was “vague” and made it difficult to identify “genuine oppressed persons” for welfare benefits.
The new definition limits the category primarily to those with biological intersex variations or specific socio-cultural identities like Hijra and Kinnar, explicitly excluding those whose identity is based on self-perception.
Human rights monitors, including Gopi Shankar Madurai of the NHRC, have rejected the Bill as “unscientific and culturally regressive,” arguing that it conflates distinct biological and social categories while ignoring the diversity of the transgender umbrella.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At The Logical Indian, we believe that true progress is impossible when the very people a law aims to protect are excluded from its making. Stripping away the right to self-identification is not just a legal change; it is an affront to the dignity and bodily autonomy of thousands of citizens.
While the government cites “clarity” and “preventing misuse” as justifications, these should never come at the cost of marginalising an already vulnerable community or overriding Supreme Court mandates. We stand for a society where identity is a matter of personal agency, not medical certification.
Also Read: DGCA Mandates 60% Free Seats, Families On Same PNR Must Sit Together
