India: Presidential approval of regressive Transgender Bill a major step backward for human rights
The decision by the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, to give assent to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, which denies transgender and gender diverse people the right to self-identify, is a serious setback for human rights in India,” said Amnesty International.
The amendment means that transgender people in India will now have to go through a series of official checks for their identity to be verified and approved by the authorities.
“This regressive law dilutes safeguards and deepens state intrusion into the lives of transgender people,” said Aakar Patel, Chair of Board, Amnesty International India.
“This law is not just a bureaucratic overreach; it is a fundamental shift in how the state views transgender people. Identity is no longer treated as something inherent, but as something to be checked, certified, and controlled. That is a dangerous precedent.”
This regressive law dilutes safeguards and deepens state intrusion into the lives of transgender people
Aakar Patel, Chair of Board, Amnesty International India
The law provides a restrictive definition of ‘transgender’, limiting recognition to certain socio-cultural categories or biological variations. It also removes the separate definition of intersex persons and instead groups them with transgender persons, blurring the distinction between sex characteristics and gender identity.
At the core of the law is the explicit removal of the right to self-identification – a right that was firmly recognized by the Supreme Court in 2014 in the landmark NALSA v. Union of India ruling. The court made it clear: gender identity is a personal choice, about dignity, autonomy, and the freedom to define oneself. It categorically held that no individual should be compelled to undergo medical procedures including “sex reassignment surgery, sterilization or hormonal therapy” as a prerequisite for legal recognition of their gender identity.
The new amendment ignores the Supreme Court ruling entirely, replacing self-identification with a system where identity must be verified by a medical board and thereafter recognized by the District Magistrate. This shifts the recognition of gender identity from a matter of personal autonomy and lived experience to one governed by the state through medical and biological criteria, undermining international human rights standards and the Supreme Court judgement.
The law also raises serious concerns about state overreach, particularly in relation to privacy and unlawful surveillance. The law allows medical institutions to share details of gender-affirming procedures with authorities. For a community already facing stigma and discrimination, this opens the door to surveillance and misuse of deeply personal data, potentially leading to harassment and abuse. It could also discourage people from seeking essential healthcare for fear of privacy infringements.
“International standards call for legal gender recognition to be a quick, accessible and transparent administrative process based on a person’s self-determination. Instead of simplifying processes, this amendment adds more bureaucratic and medical layers, approvals, and verifications which pave the way for prejudice,” said Aakar Patel.
In addition, the amendment places transgender persons and their allies at further risk by introducing a sweeping criminal framework. Specifically, it penalizes “compelling”, “forcing” or “alluring” a person or a child to outwardly present as transgender, with penalties extending up to life imprisonment. These criminal provisions coupled with the narrow definition of transgender persons, which excludes self-perceived gender identity, potentially allow for the targeting of traditional kinship systems, civil society, medical professionals and parents.
The law was passed despite clear objections from a Supreme Court-appointed expert committee on transgender rights and opposition members of the Parliament. The committee had explicitly asked the government to withdraw the bill and engage in meaningful consultation with transgender communities, which they failed to do.
The judiciary has also raised red flags. The Rajasthan High Court yesterday warned that legal changes cannot dilute constitutional guarantees, especially those already recognized under the NALSA judgement. This is a clear signal that the law may not stand against constitutional scrutiny.
“A law that directly affects fundamental rights was pushed through without consulting with the very people it affects most,” said Aakar Patel.
“We stand in solidarity with the transgender rights activists protesting the amendment and urge the government of India to urgently pause and reconsider this law. At the very least, implementation should be halted, and the law revisited through genuine, inclusive consultation. Transgender voices must be at the center of any decision-making process that affects their lives”, said Aakar Patel.
Background
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed by voice vote in the Lok Sabha (lower house) on Tuesday 24 March, and subsequently cleared by the Rajya Sabha (upper house) on Wednesday 25 March, completing its passage through parliament. The bill was approved despite sustained criticism from opposition parties. Opposition leaders raised concerns over the government’s haste in passing the legislation and urged that it be referred to a standing committee to allow for broader consultation with stakeholders.
The post India: Presidential approval of regressive Transgender Bill a major step backward for human rights appeared first on Amnesty International.
