New Delhi, March 16 Activists advocating for transgender rights on Monday stated that they do not want any provisions from the proposed "Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026" to remain in place, urging the government to withdraw the legislation entirely.
They argued that the proposed amendments could harm the rights, dignity, and identity of transgender communities.
The Bill was introduced by Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Virendra Kumar on Friday.
Addressing a press conference here, Raghavi S, the first transgender woman to practice as a lawyer in the Supreme Court, said the community does not want minor changes in the Bill and wants it taken back entirely.
"We don't want minor changes in the Bill. We want it to be taken back as it is," she said. Raghavi explained that many people do not understand the challenges faced by transgender persons and raised concerns about those who lack access or privilege.
"Even changing documents takes years. Sometimes, it takes four or five years to get our identity documents corrected," she said.
After years of struggle to gain recognition and access, the proposed amendments would push transgender persons back into a system where they would have no rights, she warned, highlighting the potential for lack of opportunities, restricted healthcare access, violence, and trauma.
"If you read the amendment carefully, it may appear to be a well-thought-out draft. But the intention behind it is very harmful and evil," she said.
Raghavi further asserted that the amendment removes the right to self-determination, which was recognized in the NALSA judgment and rooted in constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.
"The first thing being removed is the right to self-determination. Once this right is removed, the definition becomes very limited and only certain categories would be able to identify as transgender persons," she pointed out.
The activist also expressed concern that the amendment removes the separate definition of intersex persons and includes them within the definition of transgender persons.
"The Bill introduces medical gatekeeping. A person would have to undergo surgery, appear before a medical board and then approach the district magistrate, who may again refer them back to the board," she said, adding that such a bureaucratic structure would make it extremely difficult for transgender persons to access recognition and benefits.
Ritu, an activist, said the language of the proposed amendment suggests a form of continuous surveillance over transgender people. "The language suggests as if individuals are being forcibly made transgender. That assumption itself is deeply problematic and undermines our dignity," she said.
She stressed that the right to determine one's gender identity is a matter of personal liberty and dignity and a constitutional right recognised by the Supreme Court.
"The Bill appears to question our identities and forces us to constantly prove who we are. Identity cannot be subjected to such scrutiny or control. We completely reject it. Transgender communities across different identities and ideologies oppose these provisions," she said.
Ritu seconded the demand for the withdrawal of the Bill in its entirety.
Krishanu, another trans activist, said the amendment changes the definition of who can be recognised as a transgender person and conflates intersex persons with transgender persons. "This misunderstands both identities and risks erasing the realities of intersex people," the activist said.
Krishanu said the proposed amendments violate the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in NALSA vs Union of India, which protects the right to self-determination of gender identity. "The Supreme Court clearly held that gender identity is self-perceived and cannot be decided by the state. This amendment stands in direct opposition to that principle," the activist said.
The language of the amendment also creates the impression that transgender identity is something imposed through "conversion" or "undue influence", which is a deeply problematic assumption, the activist said.
Krishanu also alleged that no transgender persons were consulted while drafting the Bill. "In the absence of consultation or research, what remains are the imaginations of lawmakers about trans bodies and lives. Our appeal to lawmakers is simple -- include us in the conversation before making laws that affect our lives."
Kabir Maan, a transman activist, said he has worked with more than 15,000 children through workshops on child sexual abuse and gender education, which also helped him understand gender identities and find the strength to speak about his own.
Even after receiving a transgender ID card and certificate, he continues to face difficulties, particularly during teaching exams and interviews where his identity became a barrier.
"After hearing about the amendment Bill, the first question that came to my mind was what will happen to my future and my career. How can a medical board decide my gender identity? Identity is something I know about myself," he said.
Kabir questioned whether the government consulted members of the community before introducing the Bill. "If I say I know my own identity, how can someone else decide that I am wrong?" he asked.
He warned that instead of supporting transgender persons, such laws would push them further into fear, violence and uncertainty about their future.
