<p>The Supreme Court’s NALSA judgment of 2014 and the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/transgender-persons-protection-of-rights-act">Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act </a>of 2019 are landmark events in the recognition and implementation of the rights of transgender persons.</p><p> They recognised the third gender and the transpersons’ right to determine their own gender identity, which was accepted as part of the right to life. </p><p>Together, the right and the law have helped shape their sense of individuality, self-respect, and dignity. With the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced in Parliament last week, these progressive measures are in danger of a reversal. </p><p>The Bill seeks to narrow the definition of “transgender person,” and holds that self-perceived sexual identities cannot fall within the Act’s definition of transgender persons. It says: “...such identification cannot be extended on the basis of any acquirable characteristics, or personal choice, or claimed self-perceived identity of an individual.” </p>.This Bill could reverse Transgender Rights in India | Activists demand rollback.<p>It provides for the District Magistrate to issue a certificate of identity after examining the recommendation of a designated medical board. The existing law has had a limited impact in ensuring protection for the LGBTQIA+ community. </p><p>The amendment will take many of them outside the law’s purview, leaving them vulnerable to harsher persecution.</p>.<p>The amendment shrinks the scope of the 2019 law by making gender identity a physical and medical state. It confuses sex for gender and uses an external agency and standards to judge a person’s idea of oneself and to impose that judgment on the person. </p><p>Self-identification of gender and declaration are at the core of the existing law – taking that right away would amount to going against the letter and spirit of the law and the Supreme Court judgment. </p><p>The declared aim of the amendment is to ensure that the definition of a transgender person is precise so that the statutory benefits reach a clearly identifiable class of persons. </p><p>By mandating that medical institutions should share the details of people undergoing gender-affirming surgeries with the District Magistrate, the amendment violates the right to privacy. It could also face constitutional scrutiny because it denies the right to self-identification, which the Court said is a constitutional right.</p>.<p>The amendment will remove many safeguards available to transgender persons, as many in the community will no longer be considered transgender. </p><p>This change will increase the scope for institutional corruption and enable discrimination. Critically, the Bill was formulated without consulting the community it will affect. The government should address these concerns and withdraw the proposed amendment.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s NALSA judgment of 2014 and the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/transgender-persons-protection-of-rights-act">Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act </a>of 2019 are landmark events in the recognition and implementation of the rights of transgender persons.</p><p> They recognised the third gender and the transpersons’ right to determine their own gender identity, which was accepted as part of the right to life. </p><p>Together, the right and the law have helped shape their sense of individuality, self-respect, and dignity. With the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced in Parliament last week, these progressive measures are in danger of a reversal. </p><p>The Bill seeks to narrow the definition of “transgender person,” and holds that self-perceived sexual identities cannot fall within the Act’s definition of transgender persons. It says: “...such identification cannot be extended on the basis of any acquirable characteristics, or personal choice, or claimed self-perceived identity of an individual.” </p>.This Bill could reverse Transgender Rights in India | Activists demand rollback.<p>It provides for the District Magistrate to issue a certificate of identity after examining the recommendation of a designated medical board. The existing law has had a limited impact in ensuring protection for the LGBTQIA+ community. </p><p>The amendment will take many of them outside the law’s purview, leaving them vulnerable to harsher persecution.</p>.<p>The amendment shrinks the scope of the 2019 law by making gender identity a physical and medical state. It confuses sex for gender and uses an external agency and standards to judge a person’s idea of oneself and to impose that judgment on the person. </p><p>Self-identification of gender and declaration are at the core of the existing law – taking that right away would amount to going against the letter and spirit of the law and the Supreme Court judgment. </p><p>The declared aim of the amendment is to ensure that the definition of a transgender person is precise so that the statutory benefits reach a clearly identifiable class of persons. </p><p>By mandating that medical institutions should share the details of people undergoing gender-affirming surgeries with the District Magistrate, the amendment violates the right to privacy. It could also face constitutional scrutiny because it denies the right to self-identification, which the Court said is a constitutional right.</p>.<p>The amendment will remove many safeguards available to transgender persons, as many in the community will no longer be considered transgender. </p><p>This change will increase the scope for institutional corruption and enable discrimination. Critically, the Bill was formulated without consulting the community it will affect. The government should address these concerns and withdraw the proposed amendment.</p>
