Transgender Persons Amendment Act 2026

Earlier this year, the Transgender Persons Amendment Act, 2026 garnered a lot of attention around the country, largely for negative reasons from LGBTQIA+ activists. The bill, passed in March of this year, makes massive changes to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, a law that was passed by the same government in an earlier tenure. This prompts a lot of questions. What exactly are the changes being made? Why is the government suddenly engaging in such a massive overhaul of this legislation they passed in the wee days of their second term? What are the consequences of this bill and whom does it affect?

National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India

Before dipping one’s toes into the expansive web that is transgender legislation in India, we must take a look at National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India (UoI), a landmark Supreme Court case from back in 2014 that was a key step towards better legal recognition for transgender individuals. NALSA, in this case, argued that the government’s binary view of gender – as either male or female – was discriminatory against individuals who perceived themselves to be outside this binary. They also noted that lack of recognition also opened them up to discrimination elsewhere, which violated their Article 14 rights.

In the end, the court ruled in NALSA’s favor and put forth the following declarations regarding transgender rights and policy:

1. The Court agreed with the plaintiffs that the non-recognition of a third gender was discriminatory and moved the government to recognize a third gender option.
2. For individuals that desired to change their gender between the male/female binary, the Court stressed that it must be allowed on the basis of a “psychological test” (i.e.) self-identification of the individual rather than a biological test (i.e.) requiring sex-change surgery to allow changing gender on official documents ought to be illegal, as per the Court.
3. The Central and State Governments were directed to ensure adequate medical facilities, sanitation, socio-economic welfare, reservation in institutions, and better public awareness. 

In the context of this landmark judgement being passed, DMK Rajya Sabha MP Tiruchi Siva tabled the Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014 in the upper chamber. Though it faced intense opposition from the ruling BJP, it was later passed unanimously in the Rajya Sabha; this bill was the first private member’s bill to have been passed in 36 years and proved to be a demonstration of the appetite that was present for progressive legislation in this front. In response to this bill, which the government were not big fans of, they tabled the controversial Transgender Persons Bill, 2016; both the 2014 and 2016 bills lapsed on the Lok Sabha floor after the end of the term in 2019.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019

The Transgender Act, 2019 was an act passed with the intent to protect the rights of transgender individuals and to ensure their welfare. Firstly, the law stipulates that transgender individuals cannot be discriminated against for their identity under any grounds, including education, healthcare, employment, and access to public resources among others. The Act also recognizes the rights of a transgender individual to live and use the resources of a household where immediate relatives live without the threat of harm or eviction. The Act also orders establishments to ensure compliance with these norms and to designate a “complaints officer” to handle any compliance issues.

Then, the law enshrined the right for transgender individuals to self-identify and laid out the administrative procedure required both to get recognition as transgender as well as to legally change gender. To be recognized as transgender, an individual must approach the District Magistrate with relevant documents for a certificate of identity as a transgender person. The law stipulates that, in order for an individual to change gender to either male or female, an individual must procure a certificate from a Chief Medical Officer and must submit it to the District Magistrate for review; once approved, the individual’s gender stands changed and they will be allowed to change their first name as well.

With regards to the welfare of transgender individuals, the Transgender Act, 2019 enumerates various facilities and welfare programs that must be instituted for the benefit of transgender people, especially when it comes to healthcare – and specifically gender-affirming care. It also establishes the National Council for Transgender Persons, created with the intent to advise the government on legislation and schemes for transgender individuals as well as to address any grievances brought up by transgender individuals to the Council. The Act also notes that the Council can be endowed with money by the Centre to carry out provisions of this act.

Lastly, the Act also ensures that various crimes against transgender individuals carry a minimum penalty of 6 months and up to 2 years in jail.

Issues with the Transgender Act, 2019

While, in many ways, the Transgender Act, 2019 was a step towards progress in some regards, the Act still possessed many flaws that caused concern within the LGBTQIA+ community.

The main issue with this law is how it tackles one’s right to self-expression of gender. The court, in line with the prevailing line of thought among human rights and LGBTQIA+ rights organizations, noted that individuals must be free to self-identify with the gender of their choosing. In this context, requiring a certificate that needs Magistrate approval might constitute a violation of Article 14 rights – men and women don’t need such documents to certify their genders – as well as going against the spirit of the ruling. In addition, requiring the approval of the Chief Medical Officer of the jurisdiction to change gender after obtaining a medical certificate directly contravenes the Court’s ruling noting that a “biological test” shouldn’t be used. Not only was this a contradiction of the Supreme Court decision, but also a contravention of international standards.

The law also proved to be inadequate in addressing the issues faced by the intersex community. Though the law acknowledges intersex people and includes them under the broader transgender umbrella, the law failed to address specific needs of the intersex community, such as a ban on invasive sex-assignment surgeries.

While laying out extensive measures against discrimination and for transgender welfare, the act was quite light on specifics in many cases with regards to what constituted discrimination, the legal recourse against them, and the penalties for these crimes. The penalties handed out by the law, in cases like assault, were also lighter than in the case of cisgender individuals.

In short, while the law might have been a step up from the status quo, it was still a rather regressive piece of legislation that failed to meet both global standards as well as the standards set by our own Supreme Court.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026

On the 13th of March this year, the BJP introduced the Transgender Amendment Act, 2026 in Parliament. Understandably, this bill garnered immensely negative press from the get go, considering that it was a regressive amendment of an already regressive law.

Firstly, the amendment reduces transgender identification to certain socio-cultural groups – like the hijra, kinnar, aravani, and jogta – and individuals who have undergone sex reassignment surgery, be it with consent or through force. Furthermore, the section guaranteeing the right to self-identification was removed by this amendment while also explicitly mentioning that self-identifying transgender individuals are not included in this new definition. This definition excludes various genderqueer identities that were previously included and conferred rights under the “transgender” umbrella, including transmasculine, transfeminine, and non-binary individuals.

In addition, the amendment makes it a necessity for the District Magistrate to consult with a medical board headed by a CMO/Deputy CMO even before the issuance of a transgender certificate, while also retaining this practice for individuals who want to change their gender between male and female.

These two amendments to the existing law – which already breaches the judgement laid down in 2014 as well as contravenes international standards – are a downgrade to a law already considered regressive. The Supreme Court, in 2014, was clear that a biological test mustn’t be applied to check one’s gender as it went against an individual’s right to self-identify. Despite this, the 2018 bill, the 2019 act, and the 2026 amendment all failed to stick to the psychological test in line with self-expression prescribed by the Court. 

The government, in response to concerns about eliminating the right to self-expression, noted that the broad definition of the word “transgender” means that, from a policy point-of-view, it is really difficult to enact legislation to safeguard those socio-economic communities that have historically been associated with being third-gender.

The law is also fixated with dealing with cases of individuals being forced to present themselves as transgender, as well as with cases of individuals being forcibly given non-consensual surgeries to have them present as transgender. These offences, according to the Amendment, can attract a penalty of a minimum of 5 years and up to life in prison and a two lakh rupee fine.

This provision makes it seem like the current government is taking a leaf out of the culture wars that far-right governments have been engaging in against marginalized individuals – and especially transgender individuals – in a bid to garner more votes through fearmongering an “out” group. Right-wing ideologues claim that gender identities like those of transmasculine, transfeminine, and non-binary individuals are not consistent with Indian values and are imports of an immoral Western culture. The actual reality though, in this case, is that these baseless culture wars are what is an import of a slowly-decaying Western society; queerphobia was never an Indian value.

What Should Transgender Laws Look Like?

So, in the end, what should India’s laws regarding transgender individuals (and other genderqueer individuals) look like? There already is a good starting point for this; compliance with NALSA vs. Union of India.

As reiterated many times throughout this article, the determiner of gender should not be through a biological test that takes into account gendered body parts – that would require invasive medical checks and, potentially, sex-reassignment surgery – and instead should be a “psychological test” (i.e.) gender assignment must be based on self-identification of an individual’s perceived gender.

Stronger intersex protections are also something that ought to be offered. The presence of a unique “intersex” identity in government documents and data is first needed to better gauge the issues that plague the intersex community across this country. In addition, a ban on invasive sex-assignment surgeries on intersex individuals, especially intersex infants, needs to be implemented; currently, Tamil Nadu is the only state to have such protections, after a 2019 High Court order banned such surgeries on infants and children.

The most important thing here, though, is the need for dialogue with members of the broader community before enacting legislation that affects their lives greatly. The transgender community deserves a seat at the table where their destinies are being decided – more often than not by people who do not have their best interests in mind. 

In short, India can do much much better with respect to our legislation concerning transgender individuals. Various court judgements have shown that the appetite and legal space for progressive legislation to secure the rights of transgender people exists; we only need to take the final step and make these ideals laws. The law is currently being challenged for a litany of reasons, but the Supreme Court has refused to issue a stay order.