New Delhi, March 29, 2026 — Just days after Parliament passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, the legislation has ignited fierce protests across India, with activists, lawyers, and queer community members accusing the government of rolling back hard-won rights and echoing the discriminatory logic of the colonial Criminal Tribes Act of 1871.
The Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 13 by Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Dr. Virendra Kumar, was passed by voice vote in the lower house on March 24 and cleared the Rajya Sabha on March 25. It amends the 2019 Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, which had recognised a broad definition of transgender identity aligned with the Supreme Court’s 2014 NALSA judgment affirming self-identification.
# Key Provisions of the Amendment
The 2026 Bill narrows the legal definition of a “transgender person.” It limits recognition to:
- Persons with specific socio-cultural identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani, jogta, or eunuch.
- Persons with biological variations at birth (intersex conditions involving chromosomes, hormones, or genitalia).
It explicitly removes broader categories like trans men, trans women (regardless of medical transition), and genderqueer individuals, and states that the definition “will not include or will never have included persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities.”
Certificates of identity will now require examination and recommendation by a government-designated medical board headed by a Chief Medical Officer. The Bill also mandates medical institutions to report gender-change surgeries to district magistrates.
On the penal side, the legislation introduces stiff new offences:
- Kidnapping or causing grievous hurt/severe injury to force someone to assume a transgender identity: 10 years to life imprisonment (adult victim) or life imprisonment (child victim), with minimum fines of ₹2 lakh–₹5 lakh.
- Forcing a person to present as transgender and engage in begging, servitude, or bonded labour: 5–10 years (adult) or 10–14 years (child), with fines starting at ₹1 lakh.
The government has described these measures as necessary to protect “genuine” transgender persons—particularly children and members of traditional communities—from coercion, forced transitions, or exploitation.
# Activists: ‘It Criminalises Chosen Families and Echoes the Criminal Tribes Act’
Critics argue the Bill does the opposite: it resurrects the surveillance and criminalisation of gender-nonconforming communities that defined the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, which targeted “eunuchs” and presumed them to be habitual kidnappers of children. Under that colonial law, entire communities were registered, monitored, and penalised for simply associating with boys under 16.
Trans lawyer Raghavi told The Leaflet: “This is a sort of narrative that frames transgender identity as criminal identity and carries on from the legacy of the Criminal Tribes Act… Now when you specially deal with it within this legislation, you are actually portraying trans people as criminals, as kidnappers, as habitual offenders.”
The harshest criticism centres on how the new offences could be weaponised against “chosen families” — the hijra gharanas, jamaats, NGOs, shelter homes, and supportive friends or partners who routinely help transgender individuals escape violent natal households. Many trans persons flee physical, sexual, or psychological abuse from birth families that reject their identity. Community networks often provide the only safety net.
Advocate Kanmani Ray warned: “You are empowering every parent, every family that wants to put a trans person through violence, to also put the people supporting them through violence. Every NGO, every Hijra-Aravani jamaat is going to face this threat.”
Activists say the Bill effectively tells trans people to remain in abusive birth families rather than seek refuge in the very support systems that have sustained the community for generations. By requiring medical board approval and narrowing eligibility for certificates, welfare schemes, education quotas, and identity documents, it also risks erasing thousands who do not fit the new “socio-cultural” or strictly biological mould.
Two members of the National Council for Transgender Persons resigned in protest, citing lack of consultation. Nationwide demonstrations have erupted in cities including Chennai, Mumbai, and Delhi, with protesters holding placards reading “Self-Identification is Our Right” and “Withdraw the Control Act.”
# Government Stance and Parliamentary Debate
During debate, Minister Kumar emphasised that the amendments aim to curb “forced or compelled” transitions through hormone therapy or other interventions, especially involving minors, and to channel benefits toward historically marginalised traditional communities. Some ruling alliance MPs cited statistics on transgender populations and raised concerns about “human interference” or fake identities being used to access reservations.
Opposition MPs from TMC, RJD, CPI(M), and others walked out or demanded referral to a standing committee for wider stakeholder consultation, arguing the Bill violates the NALSA judgment and constitutional rights to dignity, equality, and privacy.
As the Bill awaits presidential assent, the transgender community and its allies have vowed continued street protests and legal challenges. Whether the legislation ultimately protects the vulnerable or polices their identities remains the central flashpoint in what activists are calling India’s most regressive step on transgender rights in over a decade.
For More News Updates Follow Us On
