New Delhi- Transgender community activists and supporters across India are raising the slogan "Reject and Repeal the Trans Amendment Bill" amid growing protests against the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. Introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 13 by Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Virendra Kumar, the bill has sparked widespread outrage for allegedly undermining the rights upheld by the landmark 2014 Supreme Court NALSA judgment.

The primary reason for the protests is that the bill illegally excludes the majority of transgender people. It narrowly defines "transgender person" to include only specific socio-cultural identities such as Hijra, Kinnar, Aravani, Jogta, eunuchs, and intersex individuals, while leaving out trans men, trans women, non-binary people, and other identities like Khwaja Sara. This exclusion directly violates Section 129(2) of the NALSA judgment, which explicitly directed the government to legally recognize the self-perceived gender identity of transgender persons without restriction.

Another major concern is the potential for criminalization and a regime of fear. Even the limited communities included in the bill face risks. Many transgender individuals escape abusive birth families and find refuge in Hijra, Kinnar, or other trans communities. Under the proposed amendments, abusive families could claim that these communities "forced" the person into a transgender identity, leading to prosecution fears. This could deter people from providing support or shelter, isolating vulnerable trans individuals further.

The bill also invades bodily autonomy and privacy. It mandates hospitals to report details of transgender persons' surgeries to the government, breaching the right to privacy. Additionally, it requires examination by a medical authority for transgender recognition, transforming an administrative process into a medical one and contradicting the NALSA judgment's rejection of biological or surgical requirements for gender identity.

Govt claims Vs Reality & SC interpretation

The government has claimed that the original 2019 Trans Act was never intended to include self-perceived identities. However, the Act explicitly defines a transgender person as anyone whose gender does not match the sex assigned at birth, irrespective of medical status or surgery. The NALSA judgment (Section 129(2)) further directed governments to grant legal recognition to self-identified gender- male, female, or third gender.

On the vagueness of the definition, critics counter that it is not vague at all. The Supreme Court emphasized psychological self-identity over biological tests, stating that failure to include diverse gender identities is a "moral failure" of society that must change.

The government also argues the 2019 Act was unworkable or incompatible with existing laws. But NALSA affirmed gender recognition as part of fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and privacy under Articles 14, 19, and 21. No statute can override fundamental rights. Under the doctrine of harmonious construction in Indian law, incompatible older laws must be interpreted or amended to align with newer rights, not vice versa.

Regarding potential misuse- such as false declarations to access benefits, data shows benefits remain poorly implemented. The 2011 census estimated around 4 lakh transgender people in India, yet only about 37,000 have transgender ID cards, fewer than 3,000 access Ayushman Bharat insurance (0.75% of the population), and less than 1,500 have received rehabilitation or skill training. Less than 10% of the trans population has accessed benefits, and the government has provided no concrete evidence of widespread misuse. Fraud can already be prosecuted under existing laws.

Key excerpts from the NALSA judgment reinforce these points: Section 74 states that gender determination belongs to the person concerned. Section 75 rejects the "biological test" in favor of the "psychological test." Section 129(5) declares insistence on sex reassignment surgery immoral and illegal. The judgment opens by noting society's "moral failure" in refusing to embrace diverse gender identities.

Protesters are posing direct questions to the government: Why was the National Council for Transgender Persons not consulted? What happens to those who already changed their gender under the 2019 Act? Where is evidence of misuse, and why penalize legitimate beneficiaries over hypothetical fraud?

The community asserts that the bill violates both the NALSA judgment and fundamental rights. Protests are intensifying nationwide, with activists warning that if passed, it will endanger the safety, dignity, and hard-won rights of transgender people. They continue to demand: Reject and Repeal the Trans Amendment Bill.