Legal and Activist Groups Urge President to Reject Transgender Bill Amendments
In a significant development, more than 140 lawyers, law students, feminists, and social activists have formally written to President Droupadi Murmu, urging her to withhold assent to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. The collective appeal requests that the bill be sent back to Parliament for thorough reconsideration, highlighting deep concerns over its provisions.
Bill Passed Amid Opposition Demands for Wider Consultation
The controversial bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on Tuesday and the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday, despite strong demands from opposition parties for it to be referred to a parliamentary standing committee. This committee would have allowed for broader consultations with stakeholders, including transgender communities and legal experts. With parliamentary approval secured, the bill now awaits the President's assent to become law, a step the signatories are actively opposing.
Key Objections: Violation of Constitutional Rights and Supreme Court Judgments
The signatories, who are members of the All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and the National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR), have raised several critical issues in their letter. They express alarm and distress at what they describe as the undue haste in passing a deeply problematic and regressive bill, which they argue disregards community concerns and opposition voices.
One of the primary objections centers on the omission of Section 4(2) from the original 2019 Act. This section guaranteed every person the right to self-perceived gender identity, a principle upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2014 case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India. The court ruled that the right to self-determination of gender is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution. By removing this provision, the amendment bill is seen as violating the constitutional rights of Indian citizens, particularly transgender individuals.
Introduction of Medical Board and Exclusion of Marginalized Groups
Another major point of contention is the introduction of a medical board in the amendment process. Under the new bill, a district magistrate is required to examine the recommendation of this medical board before issuing a certificate of identity to transgender persons. Critics argue that this adds an unnecessary bureaucratic and medical hurdle, potentially infringing on personal autonomy and dignity.
The letter further contends that while the bill is presented as making implementation more effective by targeting those in actual need of protection, it will likely exclude a vast majority of the most marginalized transgender people. This includes individuals who are economically, culturally, and socially disadvantaged, thereby denying them access to the protections and rights they are entitled to under the law.
Broader Implications and Call for Action
The platforms associated with the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM) emphasize that the bill's passage ignores multiple binding Supreme Court judgments and fails to address the lived realities of transgender communities. They call for a more inclusive and rights-based approach, urging President Murmu to exercise her constitutional authority to send the bill back for reconsideration.
This appeal underscores a growing legal and social movement advocating for the protection of transgender rights in India, highlighting the ongoing struggle for equality and justice in legislative processes.
