New Delhi, March 27, 2026 — Veteran actor and Samajwadi Party (SP) Rajya Sabha MP Jaya Bachchan launched a scathing attack on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, during a heated debate in the Upper House on Wednesday. The bill, which seeks to significantly alter the framework for legal recognition and rights of transgender persons under the 2019 Act, was ultimately passed by Parliament despite strong opposition protests, both inside the House and from activists outside.
The amendment bill, which had already cleared the Lok Sabha, was approved by voice vote in the Rajya Sabha after the government rejected demands from multiple opposition parties to refer it to a Select Committee for further scrutiny. Opposition members, including Bachchan, argued that the legislation was being rushed through during the Budget Session without adequate consultation with the transgender community or stakeholders.
# What the Amendment Bill Proposes
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, modifies key provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. According to analyses, the bill:
Eliminates self-identification: It removes the right to self-perceived gender identity, a cornerstone established by the Supreme Court’s 2014 NALSA judgment. Instead, legal recognition now requires certification from a state-appointed medical board (headed by a Chief Medical Officer) and approval by the District Magistrate, introducing mandatory medical assessments and scrutiny.
Narrows the definition of “transgender”: The broad 2019 definition is replaced with a restrictive list limited to specific socio-cultural identities (such as hijra, kinner, aravani, jogta, and eunuch), persons with certain intersex variations, and those “compelled” to present as transgender. Explicit references to trans-men, trans-women, and genderqueer individuals are removed. The bill explicitly states it does not (and never did) include persons with different sexual orientations or self-perceived sexual identities.
Introduces graded punishments: It adds provisions for penalties based on the severity of harm inflicted on transgender persons, including new offences related to forcing or using undue influence to compel someone to present as transgender, or involving them in begging, solicitation, or forced labour (punishable by 5–10 years imprisonment). Critics fear these could criminalise supportive families, doctors, or community networks.
The government defended the amendments as measures for “social reform,” greater administrative clarity, and protection of those facing discrimination due to biological issues. It highlighted existing transgender welfare boards in over 30 states and emphasised integration into mainstream society.
# Jaya Bachchan’s Fiery Intervention
Bachchan, known for her forthright style in Parliament, delivered an impassioned and at times emotional critique, blending cultural reverence with sharp political opposition. She questioned the “urgency” of introducing the bill during the Budget Session, which she said was meant for pressing national issues. “My request is to withdraw the bill and bring it back after consideration in the Monsoon session and let’s (then) discuss it,” she urged.
Invoking Hindu mythology and tradition—especially ahead of Ram Navami—she highlighted the auspicious role of the transgender community in Indian culture: “This community… has been blessed immensely by Ramji. Ram had said in every special occasion, the presence of transgender person will turn the event auspicious… As per our traditions, they visit houses for every special occasion… Their blessings will be auspicious.” She cautioned the House: “Please do not take their wraths. That’s what our mythology says.”
Bachchan repeatedly called for greater inclusion, demanding nominated representation for the transgender community in both Houses of Parliament so their “difficulties, pain and pangs” could be directly heard before legislating. She argued the bill was “insensitive” and detached from ground realities, potentially undermining the dignity the 2019 Act and NALSA judgment sought to uphold.
# Heated Standoff with the Chair
The debate turned confrontational as Bachchan faced repeated interruptions from treasury benches. When Deputy Chairman Dr. Dinesh Sharma urged order and noted her time constraints, she lost her cool. Pointing to the disruptions, she declared, “Bacche baith jao” (Children, sit down). When her speaking time was flagged as expiring, she shot back: “What time? If enough time is not there, I will go to the Well of the House and speak… How can you cut my time? I’ll go to the Well.” In a dramatic flourish, she added, “Phansi chada dijiye” (Hang us), lamenting that “weak people are anyway being hanged.”
The exchange underscored growing frustration among opposition MPs over reduced speaking time and perceived bias in maintaining order. Other opposition voices, including Priyanka Chaturvedi (Shiv Sena-UBT), Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD), Tiruchi Siva (DMK), and Swati Maliwal (AAP), echoed calls for a Select Committee, citing vagueness in provisions and lack of stakeholder consultation.
# Passage and Backlash
Despite the din, the bill was passed by voice vote after opposition amendments were rejected. The government maintained the changes would streamline welfare and legal processes without diluting core protections.
Outside Parliament, protests intensified. Transgender rights activists and civil society groups condemned the bill as a “rollback” of hard-won rights, arguing that mandatory medical boards could lead to invasive surveillance and exclusion of diverse identities. The Supreme Court-appointed advisory committee on transgender rights reportedly wrote to the Union Social Justice Minister urging withdrawal of the legislation.
As the bill now awaits presidential assent, the controversy has reignited national debate on balancing legal clarity with the constitutional rights to dignity, equality, and self-determination for transgender persons. Bachchan’s outspoken stand has drawn both praise for defending marginalised voices and criticism from some quarters for her sharp tone in the House.
The developments come nearly seven years after the original 2019 Act, which itself faced criticism for falling short of NALSA’s vision. Whether the 2026 amendments will withstand judicial scrutiny or further community consultation remains to be seen.
For More News Updates Follow Us On www.tconews.in
