Trans Activists Slam Proposed Amendment Bill as Regressive and Unconstitutional
Transgender rights activists have strongly condemned the proposed Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, labeling it as regressive and unconstitutional. The bill, introduced by Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Virendra Kumar on Friday, has sparked widespread criticism from the community, who argue it undermines identity, dignity, and equality.
Activists Voice Concerns Over Marginalization
Prominent transgender rights activist Akkai Padmashali expressed severe disapproval, stating, "This bill is so stupid. This is so regressive. This is so anti-transgender, intersex people and highly unacceptable." She warned that the provisions could further marginalize the community and create stigmatizing conditions. Padmashali highlighted that the bill makes the transgender community more vulnerable and treats them as re-criminals before the Constitution, contrary to the principles of mainstreaming issues in the 21st century.
Issues with Identity Recognition and Medical Authority
Padmashali also criticized the narrow recognition of identities in the proposed framework, which accepts only cultural and traditional terms like Hijra, Kinner, Jogappa, and Jogta, while using the derogatory term eunuch. She emphasized that this fails to represent diverse gender identities such as intersex, female-to-male transgender, and gender queer. Additionally, she objected to the proposal for medical authorities to determine gender identity, asserting, "Why should our identity be assessed by doctors or magistrates? I am not okay with it. We will fight this and challenge it before the court."
Constitutional Rights and Practical Challenges
Activist Meera Parida echoed these concerns, stating that the amendments infringe upon constitutional rights, particularly the right to privacy and bodily autonomy recognized in the NALSA judgment of 2014. She explained that verification of gender identity could lead to serious complications in accessing documents and healthcare, creating anxiety within the community. Parida called for the bill's withdrawal and urged the government to engage with the community before making legislative changes.
Legal Perspectives and Historical Contradictions
Raghavi S, the first transgender woman to practice as a lawyer in the Supreme Court, pointed out that the proposal undermines the right to self-identification established in the 2019 law and the NALSA judgment. She noted the contradiction between cultural references to gender diversity, such as Shikhandi in the Mahabharata, and the proposed medical committee system. Raghavi warned that the amendment could violate fundamental rights and silence transgender voices, forcing them to hide their identities.
Overall, activists are mobilizing to challenge the bill, emphasizing the need for inclusive policies that respect self-identification and constitutional protections for transgender persons in India.
