Concerns Raised Over 2026 Transgender Rights Amendment Bill

High Court Critique of the Amendment

The Rajasthan High Court has expressed concerns regarding the 2026 Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Amendment Bill, suggesting it may transform a fundamental aspect of identity into a 'state-mediated entitlement' for transgender individuals.

This bill was approved by Parliament on March 25, following the dismissal of a motion to send it to a select committee, and received presidential approval shortly thereafter.

Initially presented in the Lok Sabha on March 13, the legislation aims to amend the 2019 Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act by altering the definition of who qualifies as a transgender person.

Significantly, it removes the right to self-identify as a gender and restricts the law's applicability to individuals with specific biological traits, intersex variations, or particular socio-cultural identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani, and jogta.

During a hearing, Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit noted that the amendment strips away the self-perceived gender identity rights established by the 2019 Act, as reported by a legal news portal.

Justice Monga remarked that the amendment deviates from constitutional principles, stating that legal recognition of gender identity would now require administrative endorsement.

He further commented that what the Supreme Court recognized as an essential aspect of personhood is now at risk of being diminished to a conditional entitlement from the state.

The High Court was addressing a petition from a transgender individual challenging a 2023 notification from the Rajasthan government that classified transgender persons as Other Backward Class without offering separate reservations.

The petition highlighted the absence of reservations for transgender individuals in educational institutions and government employment.

The court instructed the state government to establish a committee to assess the marginalization faced by transgender persons and propose remedial measures.

Additionally, the state was directed to grant an extra 3% weightage in selection processes for government positions and educational admissions for transgender individuals.

The bench's ruling was grounded in the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in the National Legal Services Authority versus Union of India case, which affirmed the right to self-identify as a gender as a core element of dignity and personal liberty under various articles of the Constitution.

Article 14 ensures equality before the law, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or birthplace. Article 16 addresses equal opportunity in public employment, and Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Justice Monga emphasized that selfhood is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and noted that the new amendment undermines this right.

The bench insisted that any policy developed following the court's directives must uphold the principle of self-identification as much as possible within the framework of the amended law.

They stated that any state policy should aim to maintain constitutional guarantees by extending reservations and adopting a cohesive approach.

Furthermore, the bench asserted that any legislative or executive framework must not only comply with legal standards but also align with constitutional values, emphasizing the need to address the systemic marginalization faced by transgender individuals.

Key Features of the Amendment

The newly enacted legislation mandates medical evaluation and certification for legal gender recognition, assigning this authority to medical professionals within a designated medical board.

It also introduces a system of graded punishments for offenses, raising the maximum penalty from two years under the previous law to up to 14 years.

Moreover, individuals who have been coerced into adopting a transgender identity under 'undue influence' will not be protected by this law.

The legislation aims to safeguard a specific group facing severe discrimination, rather than encompassing all individuals with diverse gender identities or fluidities.

During discussions in the Rajya Sabha, opposition members voiced concerns that the bill undermines the self-identification rights recognized by the Supreme Court in the 2014 NALSA ruling.

This landmark judgment established the 'third gender' category for transgender individuals, acknowledging them as a socially and economically disadvantaged group.

It mandated the government to ensure job quotas, educational admissions, health benefits, separate public facilities, and various protections against discrimination for the transgender community.