As Parliament moves to consider amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, transgender rights activists are expressing deep concern, warning that the proposed changes could reverse years of progress by weakening fundamental protections and excluding large parts of the community from legal recognition.
At a public meeting held on Sunday, activists joined Members of Parliament from several Opposition parties to protest the amendments, which are expected to be discussed and taken up for passage in Parliament on Monday. According to those opposing the Bill, the proposed changes represent a serious shift away from the rights-based approach that underpinned the existing law.
One of the most strongly criticised aspects of the amendment is the move toward requiring medical proof of gender identity. Activists say this directly undermines the principle of self-identification, which was central to the 2019 law. Under the current framework, a transgender person is broadly recognised as someone whose gender identity does not align with the gender assigned at birth. The proposed amendments, however, seek to replace that inclusive understanding with a narrower and more restrictive list of recognised categories.
Another major concern is that the Bill reportedly excludes people with diverse sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities from its scope. Activists argue that this approach wrongly mixes up gender identity with sexual orientation, despite the Supreme Court’s 2014 NALSA judgment having clearly treated them as distinct concepts. They believe that such wording would legally erase many people who currently fall within the broader transgender spectrum.
Lawyer and activist Raghavi, who is herself a trans woman, said the proposed framework ignores the lived realities of transgender persons. She pointed out that not everyone has the financial means, family support, or social conditions necessary to undergo gender-affirming medical procedures. According to her, removing self-identification from the law would exclude many people who are transgender but cannot access surgery or medical intervention.
Under the proposed changes, recognition as a transgender person would reportedly be limited to those who are born intersex or those who have been forced or induced to undergo castration, mutilation, or certain forms of surgical, chemical, or hormonal intervention. Activists say this definition is far too narrow and would leave out a large section of transgender persons who do not fit into those categories but still experience gender dysphoria, social exclusion, and identity-based discrimination.
Raghavi also questioned how the amended law expects individuals to prove socio-cultural identity if recognition is tied to communities such as hijras, kinners, or eunuchs. She raised concerns that this may create another form of exclusion, especially for those who are not accepted into traditional community structures or do not wish to become part of them. According to her, many trans persons face rejection at home and leave their families at a young age, only to find that acceptance within established community networks is also uncertain.
Activists further argue that the proposed changes would disproportionately affect trans men, who have historically not been included in hijra or kinnar community structures in the same way as trans women. They also worry about the situation of trans women who are either denied entry into such groups or choose not to join them, saying the law would leave them without meaningful recognition.
There is also strong criticism of what activists describe as the Bill’s underlying assumptions. They say the amendment appears to rely on the idea that transgender identity can be imposed through coercion or “undue influence,” a notion they reject as harmful and baseless. In their view, this framing turns a matter of identity and dignity into one of suspicion, control, and criminalisation.
A public statement released by activists last week argued that the proposed changes reinforce dangerous stereotypes by suggesting a link between transgender identity and coercion or criminal behaviour. They warned that the Bill includes vague provisions that could lead to imprisonment of up to five years for allegedly “alluring” or “forcing” someone to become transgender, despite there being no credible evidence of such a pattern in India. Activists fear that such broad language could be misused against transgender persons and those who support them.
Additional concerns have been raised about provisions that could criminalise the support systems around transgender individuals, including family members, doctors, community members, and social workers. Because terms such as “force” and “inducement” are not clearly defined, activists say the law could easily be weaponised by natal families or authorities to target those helping a person express or affirm their gender identity.
LGBTQ rights activist and businessman Keshav Suri said the amendments go against the spirit of the Supreme Court’s landmark NALSA judgment, which upheld the right to self-determination of gender. He argued that any move that weakens this principle should not be allowed to proceed without extensive consultation with transgender and gender-diverse communities.
Activists have also criticised the process through which the amendments were brought forward, saying there was inadequate consultation with stakeholders. They noted that, unlike the 2019 Act, which involved community engagement, the present amendments were not discussed properly with the National Board for Transgender Persons. Reports suggest that at least four members of the Board have already opposed the Bill.
Drawing comparisons with colonial-era laws such as the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, activists warned that the proposed language risks stigmatising transgender persons once again by framing them as suspicious or inherently linked to social harm. They believe the legislation threatens to turn what was intended as a protective legal framework into an instrument of exclusion and fear.
Another major issue raised is the uncertainty facing those who have already obtained legal recognition under the existing law. Activists say thousands of people who have structured their lives around state-recognised identities could now be pushed into legal limbo if the definition is changed. In their view, the proposed amendments risk destabilising the lives of people who had finally secured some form of dignity and recognition through the law.
With Parliament set to take up the Bill, activists are urging the government to halt the process and initiate broader consultations with transgender persons, legal experts, and community representatives. They insist that any amendment to the law must preserve the principles of self-identification, dignity, and inclusion that were affirmed by the Supreme Court and fought for over many years.
