New Delhi: The government on Tuesday said the objective of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 is to provide protection to such persons as the opposition slammed the proposed legislation for taking away the right to self-determination of identity and demanded that it be sent to a standing committee for proper consultations.
Moving the bill for consideration and passage in Lok Sabha, Social Justice and Empowerment Virendra Kumar said its objective is to provide safety and benefits to the community.
“To ensure that transgender persons can avail themselves of the benefits of this Act, it was necessary to provide a precise definition for them; this bill has been introduced to address that very need,” the minister said.
He said the bill includes a provision for the establishment of a medical board.
District magistrates will issue identity cards to transgender persons, he said.
Participating in the debate, Congress MP Jyothimani said the bill has been brought without consultations from transgender people and shows the government’s “callous” attitude.
She said Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi have listened to transgender people and deeply understand what they feel.
Jyothimani asserted that this bill is not a reform.
A Supreme Court judgement has recognised that gender identity is a matter of self determination.
“It is affirmed that dignity, bodily autonomy, identity are protected under Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution,” she said.
The Congress MP criticised the provision of bringing a medical board for identity determination and claimed that the bill narrows the definition of transgender.
“This is not democracy but a monologue of power which is the trademark of the Modi government,” Jyothimani alleged.
The bill must be referred to a standing committee for comprehensive consultations with the transgender people, she asserted.
Opposing the legislation, Samajwadi Party’s Anand Bhadauria said the government claims that the bill is for the welfare of transgender people, but if that is true, then why are they opposing this bill on the streets.
He pointed out that it was the SP that established the ‘Samajwadi kinnar sabha’ within its organisational ambit.
“The BJP wants to make people stand in queue. Now you want to make transgender people stand in line for their identity,” he said, adding that the bill gives limited definition of transgender people.
“It is unfair exclusion and is not based on constitutional principles,” he said.
DMK’s T Sumathy also slammed the government for allegedly interfering with the right to self-determination of identity.
“This government treats the transgender community as subjects to be corrected which is highly condemnable… the DMK rejects the bill. The government should withdraw the bill and at the least send it to the standing committee of Parliament,” she said, calling the bill “draconian”.
The bill seeks to give a precise definition of the term “transgender” and exclude “different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities” from the proposed law’s ambit was introduced in Lok Sabha earlier this month.
The bill provides for graded punishments that reflect the gravity of the harm inflicted upon such persons.
It underlines that a transgender person “shall not include, nor shall ever have been so included, persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities”.
“The intent, object and purpose of the Act is and was to protect a specified class of persons socially and culturally known as transgender people who face societal discrimination of an extreme and oppressive nature.
“The purpose was and is not to protect each and every class of persons with various gender identities, self- perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities,” the bill says.
The bill notes that it is imperative to give a precise definition for proper and definitive identification and protection of transgender persons, to whom the benefits of the present law must reach.
The protection and benefits that are provided under the present 2019 law are vast in nature, and therefore, care has to be taken that “such identification cannot be extended based on any acquirable characteristics or personal choice or claimed self-perceived identity of an individual”.
The bill also contains provisions for “designation of an authority” which will have the option to seek “expert advice” if required.
A new clause defines “authority” as a medical board headed by a chief medical officer or a deputy chief medical officer appointed by the central government, state government or a Union territory administration.
The bill notes that over the course of time, during the implementation of transgender protection law, “certain doubts and difficulties have arisen and are likely to arise” regarding the “expanse of the definition” of transpersons.
It inserts a new sub-clause to define a transperson as one having socio-cultural identities as ‘kinner’, ‘hijra’, ‘aravani’ and ‘jogta’, or eunuch, or a person with intersex variations or a person who, at birth, has a congenital variation in one or more sex characteristics as compared to male or female.
The bill proposes to create specific offences with graded punishments that reflect the gravity of the harm, the irreversibility of the injury, and the particular vulnerability of child victims.
