Opposition MPs, activists oppose amendments to Transgender Persons Act

Members of Parliament and political party officials from across the country on Sunday, March 22, 2026, spoke against the Union government’s bill to amend the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which proposes to remove the right to self-perceived gender identity and introduce the requirement of a medical board to determine whether a person is transgender based on a new definition of “transgender person”.

At a public hearing held at the Press Club of India, Rajya Sabha MPs from the Rashtriya Janata Dal, Indian National Congress and Communist Party of India (Marxist) spoke against the bill and said there was an attempt to coordinate a strategy to oppose the law within Parliament. But RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha said, “This government is only afraid of the streets” even as Renuka Chowdhury said it would be an “uphill battle”. John Brittas said there had been no formal meeting between political parties on the strategy to oppose the bill, but it was expected to be discussed at the next meeting of Opposition Parliamentarians.

Congress leader Sandeep Dikshit was also present at the public hearing, along with Nationalist Congress Party’s national spokesperson Anish Gawande. Both opposed the bill.

The bill was introduced by Union Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar in the Lok Sabha on March 13. The bill proposes redefining “transgender person” and removing a section that currently recognizes transgender people’s right to have a self-perceived gender identity.

In the bill, the government said the “current vague definition” of transgender people “makes it impossible to identify the actual oppressed people to whom the benefits of the Act are intended to reach.” He added that the law was never intended to protect “individuals with diverse gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities, or gender fluidity.” He said the policy “existed and still exists” to protect “solely those who face serious social exclusion for biological reasons through no fault of their own or choice”.

The bill also introduces the terminology of “authority”, which is a health board to be created by the government. This “authority” will make a recommendation to the District Magistrate for the issuance of a transgender certificate. The bill also proposes giving District Magistrates discretionary powers to decide whether transgender certification is “necessary or desirable”. It also requires health institutions conducting gender verification procedures to share their details with district administrations.

On Sunday, Mr. Jha said the only explanation for such a “reactionary” bill was that “the thinking of this government is reactionary.” He added that Parliamentary Committees are a very important forum. “This law does not even deserve that,” he said. Mr. Jha also said that efforts were already underway among some Parliamentarians to oppose the bill in the House. However, he said: “But this government has learned the art of manipulating Parliament. It’s just afraid of the streets.”

Chennai-based trans rights activist and writer Grace Banu also attended the public hearing in New Delhi and said: “Welfare measures do not empower my community. Rights do,” and added: “Gender self-determination is a right.” Talking about the difficulties of taking existing laws to the final stage, Tan, a trans activist and community leader who works with communities in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, said: “Even now, our work starts with explaining to district officials what the law is, when it was passed, when it was notified. This bill does not give us any fighting chance. So we have to assume that the government is coming from a malicious place.”

Nikunj, a transgender and leader of the Tapish Foundation in Madhya Pradesh, said their fight was about the right to “stand up and say who we are”.

The bill’s introduction drew strong reactions from transgender communities in India, including queer groups that have historically aligned with the government on other policy issues. The Queer Hindu Alliance issued a statement expressing its “deep concerns” about the bill and called for public consultation “in the spirit of peace, not opposition”. samvadOther community leaders associated with Kinnar Akharas from North India Sanatan DharmaPeople like Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Radhikanand Giri in Mumbai also opposed the bill.

The government recently met with some members of the National Council on Transgender People, where it defended the bill and cited “actual transgender individuals” as one of the reasons for limiting the definition in the amendments.