Published on: 11th June 2026
AUTHORED BY: PAIYYAVULA RAMYA
NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW
INTRODUCTION
The 2026 Amendment to the Transgender Bill1 raises urgent questions regarding the boundaries of state power and the preservation of individual freedom. One might ask why we should worry about this amendment or why understanding its implications is essential. To many, it may seem that because the transgender community represents a minority, legislative changes affecting them do not concern the majority. However, we must challenge this bill because it establishes a precedent for the State to intervene in personal lives to an extent that fundamentally breaches the privacy of all citizens.
The true danger lies in the violation of fundamental rights and the State’s decision to prioritise medical reports over an individual’s own perceptions. By accepting this Bill, we essentially accept the government’s right to question personal choices. If the State is permitted to do this to one group today, it may tomorrow question the identity and personal choices of every individual.
One must ask why this community is treated differently that the golden triangle2 of fundamental rights, Articles 14, 19, and 21, are being denied to them. Are these citizens being stripped of their rights simply because they are physically different from the gender binary? This article does not aim to degrade any opinion; rather, it presents the facts behind the controversies and the significant backlash from activists. Ultimately, the litmus test for human rights is how a State treats its marginalised groups. If transgender people face such discrimination, we must ask: is our society failing, and what does this conclude about our vision of “Shrestha Bharat”?
OBJECTIVES OF THE ARTICLE:
This article critically examines the 2026 Amendment Bill and:
- The role of medical intervention and its impact in identifying transgendered people its compliance with the NALSA and Puttaswamy rulings.
- How the new bill effects the fundamental rights of transgender
- Propose legal reforms that balance state administrative requirements with the individual’s right to self-identification.
BACKGROUND:
According to the 2011 census, there were approximately 4.87 lakh people who identified themselves as transgenders, a number that has since become obsolete, most probably much higher today. However, this number is constrained due to issues like social stigma and lack of uniformity in the definition and legal status of transgender persons.
An effort was taken to correct this situation through the famous case of NALSA v. Union of India (2014). In this petition, the petitioners alleged that the discrimination against transgenders stemmed from the fact that they had been deprived of a chance to have their identity recognized. It was claimed that the petitioners were compelled to conform to existing boxes of legality in order to hide their true identity. The Court considered this as an explicit case of discrimination and a violation of golden triangle of fundamental rights under articles 14, 19, and 21.
The Supreme Court, on 15th April 2014, gave a judgment through a two-judge bench headed by Justices K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Arjan Kumar Sikri. The court granted people the freedom to determine their gender identity based on their psychological perception, regardless of their biological sexuality.
The judgment was a step towards moving beyond the penalizing laws of the colonial era to grant legal personhood status to individuals. The judgment allowed individuals to define their own perceptions of themselves without being restricted to the male and female gender binary categories.
Following this, the legislature enacted the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019,3 which aligned with the NALSA 2014 verdict. Divided into nine-chapters, this act addressed various community issues and was celebrated as the first law to provide formal legal support and recognition.
Importantly, it should be mentioned that for the first time, the Act contained the definition of a transgender, which could be considered as an individual that does not have the same sex assigned during birth. The Act contains transgender men, transgender women, gender queer individuals, and socio-cultural categories of Kinner, Hijra, Aravani, and Jogta. However, notably, in relation to the 2019 Act, it is important to emphasize that the process of medical surgery is not required to identify the category of the transgender.
Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act highlights self-identification as a criterion that must be fulfilled for entering the transgender group. It is important to note that there were no medical boards involved in identity verification under this Act.
In addition to the above definition, the Act also gained popularity due to the introduction of laws prohibiting discrimination and ensuring welfare of the transgender community in society. In addition, direct obligations were provided for authorities and organizations to ensure inclusiveness. At the same time, the State was responsible for ensuring that transgender individuals received basic needs, such as education, social security, and health care.
Section 16 of the Act mandates the formation of a National Council for Transgender Persons, headed by the Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment as Chairperson and includes representatives from various other ministries, committees to oversee the needs of transgender community. Additionally, Section 18 prescribes punishments for acts of discrimination against transgender individuals. They were happy with the prior act, but introduction of new bill lead to protests country wide against it.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK:
The introduction of the 2026 amendment bill4 triggered nationwide backlash, primarily due to its restrictive new definition. The government argued that the previous criteria for identification were too vague and needed narrowing to protect genuine transgender persons.
According to the current legislation, the category is restricted to people having a particular socio-cultural identity, for instance, Kinner, Aravani, Jogta, or Eunuch. Besides, the bill places great emphasis on biological factors, particularly people who are born with some congenital anomalies regarding primary sexual characteristics, external genitalia, chromosomal patterns, gonadal development, and hormones production. Moreover, the bill encompasses people who have undergone surgeries, chemical treatment, or hormonal therapy to change their biological sex.
It is worth noting that according to the 2026 Bill, no one will be classified under the bill based on self-identity or perceived identity. This clause violates the judgment of the Supreme Court on NALSA v. Union of India. According to the judgment, an individual has the freedom to choose his/her identity as either a man, woman, or transgender person.
Another section of the amendment that received high public criticism concerns the process for official recognition. Under the 2014 judgment and the 2019 Act, an individual could apply to the respective District Magistrate, and after a subsequent process, they would be issued a card declaring them as part of the transgender community.
However, the proposed amendment changes this by requiring individuals to undergo a medical examination before a medical board. This board operates under Chief Medical Officers and other officials at the director level. When an application is received by the District Magistrate, this board is tasked with verifying whether the person should belong to the transgender community or not.
Activists who led strikes and protests following the introduction of the amendment bill have labelled it illogical, unconstitutional, illegal, lacking proper consultation and kills the spirit of constitutional morality.5 A central point of their criticism is the unequal treatment of citizens;
They questioned whether females and males are ever required to undergo similar medical board examinations to prove their gender, as is now being demanded of transgender persons.
Other than the medical procedure, the Bill allows individuals to identify themselves as belonging to a certain guru following the traditional guru-chela concept. The activists have fiercely objected to this provision, noting that it might lead to further exploitation. According to the activists, the individual’s freedom will be violated since he/she will have to follow the orders of the guru. This implies that he/she might not be able to do what he/she wants to or even pursue his/her dream job.
Further, the activists refute the reasoning of the government regarding the changes. As argued, the amendments are needed to prevent people who pretend to be transgender from exploiting others. Therefore, the activists ask whether the benefits that transgender persons receive from the welfare scheme are enough to compel people to undergo verification procedures.
Additionally, the Bill has some other provisions for protecting the transgender community. Specifically, there are certain measures to penalize anyone who induces or forces an individual to become a transgender person. As compared to the 2019 Act, the time period of the imprisonment and number of fines have drastically increased. For instance, the six-months imprisonment has changed to life imprisonment, while fines can reach several lakhs rupees.
As of 04-05-2026, the bill was passed from both the houses of parliament and supreme court officially taken up the matter.
Analysing these bills and laws reveals a concerning shift; after progressing toward an inclusive society following the 2014 judgment, there appears to be a regression toward patriarchal norms. While the NALSA verdict established India as a modern, inclusive nation, the 2026 Bill seems to contradict that progress. Under the guise of protecting real transgender persons, the State risks marginalising many others, creating a dangerous and slippery slope. Denying an individual the right to define their own identity is a direct strike against their personal dignity.
In summary, The Bill faces a paradox in the sense that even though it is called “protection of rights,” it actually infringes on the very essence of who the subjects of such protection are. This is contrary to the laws in place in countries such as Malta, Iceland, Canada, Denmark, and other Scandinavian countries. These countries use a liberal approach to define transgender persons without government interference. They do not rely on complex bureaucracy and intrusive physical examinations before the board of doctors, which is why transgenders are safer there.
Furthermore, the medical board acts as a gatekeeper for recognition, suggesting that the State prioritises medical reports over personal identity. This reflects the theories of Michel Foucault, who highlighted how the dominance of the medical field and its technologies can wipe out or reject the subjective knowledge of individuals. Prioritising medical boards in this manner is detrimental to both the stability and the growth of a healthy society.
From a constitutional perspective, Article 1416 dictates that Supreme Court rulings are binding, and Article 1427 grants the court power to do complete justice. Since complete justice was delivered in the 2014 NALSA verdict, the Parliament’s decision to go directly against that ruling raises serious questions of unconstitutionality. Additionally, the landmark Puttaswamy judgment emphasised the importance of respecting individual autonomy. Subjecting transgender persons to a medical board simply to prove their identity is a clear violation of their fundamental rights and human dignity.
For the benefit of the transgender community, the government needs to emphasize dignity and respect rather than bureaucracy. Giving back the right to self-identify is crucial because people’s identities do not lie on a piece of paper. Rather, the state needs to focus on sensitization and awareness instead of medicalization. Lastly, offering economic assistance through job opportunities and scholarships will be vital for full independence.
In conclusion, results indicate that true success lies in going past the mere process of legalizing but emphasizing social incorporation. The 2019 Act was indeed groundbreaking legislation, but currently, the move to have a medical board undermines its significance since people’s rights to autonomy and privacy are stripped away. The future of such a law will depend on whether or not the state ensures that a person can continue living his or her life with dignity without any restrictions. Progressive nations can only be judged by the manner in which they treat the most vulnerable members of society.
REFERENCES:
1 The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, No. 40, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India)
2 India Const. arts. 14, 19, 21.
3 The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, supra note 1.
4 The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, Bill No. 79-C of 2026 (India).
5 NDTV, Trans Amendment Bill | India Alliance, Activists Oppose Trans Amendment Bill, Call It Regressive, YouTube (Mar. 22, 2026), https://youtu.be/dVYnRZMOYhE.
6 India Const. art. 141.
7 India Const. art. 142.
