A Supreme Court-appointed panel has urged the central government to withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, which was passed in the Parliament on Wednesday (25th March). The committee headed by retired Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon was set up by the top court to examine transgender rights.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had formed the committee last year during the hearing of a case involving the allegations of discrimination against a transgender teacher whose appointment had been terminated because of her gender identity. The committee was directed to examine barriers faced by transgender persons in employment, healthcare and access to public services and to suggest measures to improve implementation of the 2019 law.
The committee has reportedly written to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, expressing concerns regarding several provisions in the amended law, including the definition of a transgender person. It has sought the reconsideration of the law.
Objections regarding the definition of transgender persons
Notably, the definition of a transgender person is one of the key highlights of the new law. The amended definition does away with the “right to self-perceived gender identity”, which was recognised under the Transgender Persons Act of 2019. Under the previous law, individuals could identify themselves as transgender based on their own gender identity. This was causing ambiguity and difficulty in the implementation of the law. Therefore, the new law narrowed down the definition to include only those who can be identified through socio-cultural or biological realities.
The committee has objected to the removal of self-identification under the new law. It said that the individuals who identify as transgender but have not undergone surgery or do not meet specified biological criteria may face difficulty obtaining official recognition. As per the committee, this could result in difficulty in accessing identity documents, or government welfare schemes meant for transgender persons could become more difficult.
It added that it would lead to the exclusion of several individuals who identify as transgender but do not fall within these categories. Furthermore, it said that the removal of the right to self-identification contravenes the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment (2014), which recognised the right of individuals to identify their own gender.
Objections regarding the confidentiality of medical records
The committee raised concerns regarding the privacy of transgender persons under the new law. Under the amended law, medical institutions where gender-affirming surgeries will be performed may be required to share details of such procedures with district authorities. This way, the personal information of a transgender person will end up in government records.
The committee has also objected to the structured medical certification system introduced under the amended law, claiming this will also lead to the violation of privacy. The committee said that since identity certificates will be issued by district magistrates based on recommendations from designated medical authorities, this might violate confidentiality.
Objections regarding additional penal provisions
The committee feels that additional punitive provisions under the amended law are not needed. It noted that many of the offences included in the amended law are already covered under the existing criminal laws. Notably, the new laws provide higher penalties for offences such as forced identity, abduction and exploitation. The committee recommended that any future amendments to the laws relating to transgender persons should be introduced only after consulting with the transgender communities and stakeholders.
In the Statement of the Object and Reasons of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, the government clarified the reason for making amendments in the existing laws. The government noted that the earlier “vague and broad definition” made it difficult to identify who actually needed protection and made the implementation of laws complicated. It clearly stated that the law was always meant to protect a specific class of people who face real, structural discrimination, not an ever-expanding universe of identity claims.
