6 min readMar 18, 2026 12:21 PM IST First published on: Mar 18, 2026 at 12:21 PM ISTOn March 13, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, in the Lok Sabha. Among its various provisions, one stands out for its far-reaching consequences: A new, “precise” definition of who qualifies as a transgender person. In the name of clarity, the Bill proposes to significantly narrow the scope of recognition, effectively excluding a large section of the very community the law seeks to protect.The new definition limits transgender identity to three categories: Intersex persons, individuals belonging to certain socio-cultural communities such as hijra, kinnar, aravani or jogta, and those who are said to have been forced into presenting a transgender identity. Conspicuously absent are transgender men, transgender women outside socio-cultural identities, and non-binary or genderqueer individuals, who are included in the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. This is not a minor technical revision. It is a fundamental shift that undermines the core of what it means to be a transgender person in law. Under this formulation, tens of thousands of individuals who currently identify, and are legally recognised, as transgender may suddenly find themselves excluded. Their identities would not merely be ignored; they would be erased. This narrowing of definition runs directly in contravention of the Supreme Court’s ruling in NALSA vs Union of India (2014), which clearly held that gender identity is a matter of self-determination. It is also inconsistent with contemporary medical understanding.AdvertisementAlso Read | Supreme Court order on trans rights highlights government failuresGlobal health authorities, including the World Health Organisation, distinguish clearly between biological sex and gender identity. Gender cannot be reduced to anatomy or verified through physical examination; it is a deeply felt sense of self. International human rights frameworks, such as the Yogyakarta Principles, similarly affirm the right to self-identify one’s gender without coercion or external validation. Against this backdrop, the proposed definition appears not only regressive but also out of step with both science and international norms.Equally troubling is the mechanism the Bill introduces to “verify” transgender identity. It proposes that individuals must undergo examination by a district-level medical board to establish that they are “genuine” transgender persons. This raises a fundamental question: How does one medically verify gender identity? The answer, quite simply, is that one cannot. Doctors can assess sexual characteristics, but gender identity is not a diagnosable condition. Subjecting individuals to medical scrutiny for the purpose of validating their identity is not only scientifically flawed but also deeply invasive. It undermines dignity, autonomy, and privacy, values that are central to both constitutional jurisprudence and medical ethics. This provision is also in violation of the right to privacy as guaranteed in K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2018).The Bill goes further, mandating that all gender-affirming surgeries be reported by doctors and hospitals to the district magistrate. This requirement is alarming. It violates the principle of doctor-patient confidentiality, a cornerstone of medical practice and is in violation of existing guidelines of professional conduct of doctors. It risks deterring individuals from seeking necessary healthcare for fear of exposure or administrative scrutiny.AdvertisementPerhaps the most concerning provision, however, lies in the Bill’s criminal clauses. It introduces penalties for acts involving “coercion, deception or inducement” in relation to gender-affirming procedures. While the intent may be to prevent abuse, the language is broad and vague. In practice, it could enable the criminalisation of consensual medical care based on subjective or malicious allegations. It also furthers dangerous tropes that portray transgender people as those who kidnap babies or castrate children to force them into begging and sex work.Yet, the punishment for abuse of transgender people remains unchanged in this Bill. India has seen similar patterns in other legislation, for example, ones concerning religious conversions and inter-faith marriages, where loosely defined offences create space for misuse and harassment. There is a real danger that these provisions could be weaponised against transgender individuals, their families, or even medical professionals who provide legitimate care.The government has justified these changes on the grounds that the benefits under the Act must reach only “genuine” transgender persons, and that the earlier definition created administrative complexity. But complexity in implementation cannot be a reason to curtail rights or erase trans people’s identities. If anything, it points to the need for better institutional capacity, greater sensitisation, and more robust administrative mechanisms. The difficulties in implementing the 2019 Act are well documented. But they stem from gaps in execution, not from the principle of self-identification itself. Rolling back that principle does not solve the problem; it compounds it.The timing of this amendment is particularly significant. India is currently in the midst of a Census exercise that, for the first time, seeks to comprehensively enumerate transgender persons. At such a moment, clarity and inclusivity in definition are essential. A restrictive framework risks not only undercounting but also institutionalising exclusion.Rights for transgender persons in India have been hard-won. From invisibility and criminalisation to recognition and protection, the journey has been shaped by persistent advocacy and progressive judicial intervention. The NALSA judgment marked a turning point by affirming that dignity, autonomy and identity are non-negotiable. The proposed amendment, however, signals a step in the opposite direction. By narrowing definitions, introducing medical gatekeeping, and creating avenues for surveillance and criminalisation, it risks undoing much of that progress.you may likeLaws meant to protect vulnerable communities must be guided by trust, inclusion, and respect for autonomy. They must expand the scope of rights, not restrict them. The Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, in its current form, does not meet that standard.At a time when India has the opportunity to lead by example in upholding the rights of transgender persons, it must choose to move forward — not backwards.We, the transgender people of India, reject this atrocious Bill.The writer is professor, community medicine, Department of Community Medicine, Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Jamia Hamdard