The Transgender Persons Amendment Bill is a flawed fix

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 (Bill No. 79 of 2026), introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 13, 2026 — and now passed by the Rajya Sabha on March 25, 2026 — makes several sharp changes to the 2019 Act. It narrows the definition of “transgender person” to only specific socio-cultural identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani, jogta, eunuch, or biologically-defined intersex variations, or persons forcibly compelled into such an identity through mutilation, castration, amputation, or any surgical, chemical or hormonal procedure. It explicitly excludes persons with different sexual orientations and non-heteronormative gender fluid identities.

The Bill removes the right to “self-perceived gender identity” from Section 4(2), replaces the simple District Magistrate process with a medical board “authority” headed by a Chief Medical Officer, and mandates hospitals to report every transgender surgery to the District Magistrate and the authority.

Perpetuating structural problems

The government claims that the new amendments fix the vagueness and implementation failures of the 2019 Act. Every year, thousands of intersex infants are killed or undergo medically unethical, non-consensual sex-selective surgeries that mutilate their bodies without regard for lifelong physical and psychological trauma, all in pursuit of a false “normalcy”. Millions of intersex individuals remain ghosts in our Census systems, their births and deaths unregistered, rendering them invisible to legal protections and social services.

Even the highest authorities fail to grasp the fundamental distinctions between sex identity and gender identity, or between intersex variations and transgender identities, which fuels rampant discrimination. The Bill itself refers to male and female as “gender identity”, which is fundamentally wrong — male and female are sex identities. By clubbing sex identity under the gender column, the Bill creates new problems where it is meant to solve existing ones.

The government does not have reliable data on transgender and intersex persons in India. They want to grant us rights but do not know who we are. Separating sex and gender identity as different categories on official documents would address the root causes of this problem.

Despite the new wording, the Bill still lumps “persons with intersex variations” inside the definition of a “transgender person.” The term “transgender persons” often conflates distinct identities. The Trans Act’s definition includes persons with intersex variations under “transgender”, which erases intersex-specific needs. Intersex is a natural biological spectrum (recorded 1%-2% globally). Transgender identity is a psychological and social construct.

Retaining this conflation under one label violates rights under Article 21 to bodily integrity and privacy. It leaves out intersex infants without any specific ban on “normalising” surgeries and ignores repeated calls for separate intersex legislation.

The Bill’s definition also contradicts established international standards: the United Nations and the World Health Organization define intersex as innate variations in sex characteristics that do not fit typical male or female binaries, requiring distinct legal recognition and explicit protections against non-consensual medical interventions. By forcing intersex persons into a transgender category, the Bill undermines these global definitions and erodes the very human rights framework that India has committed to uphold.

The Bill leaves the outdated title, National Council for Transgender Persons, and all State Welfare Boards unchanged. It ignores the long-standing proposal to rebrand them as a National GIESC Welfare Council and State GIESC Welfare Boards (GIESC is Gender Identity/Expression and Sex Characteristics). This keeps the entire policy architecture trapped under the problematic “transgender” umbrella instead of creating a scientifically accurate, inclusive framework. The government continues to promote a single identity at the national level.

This heteronormative bill erases the reality that GIESC communities, including transgender persons, may have diverse sexual orientations such as transgay, translesbian, transbisexual, or queer.

Legally empowering exploitative structures

New clauses in Section 18 introduce rigorous imprisonment (between five to 14 years) for forcing adults or children into “transgender presentation” plus begging or servitude. Yet, the Bill does nothing to regulate or dismantle the colonial hijra jamath-gharana system. By targeting only external perpetrators while leaving internal hierarchies untouched, the amendment effectively legitimises and empowers the long-standing hijra jamath-gharana system, codifying it into law. These structures are not inherently traditional; earlier Indic frameworks were more inclusive and rooted in a broader, affirmative understanding of diverse identities, free from later external influences.

At present, chief hijra nayaks control chelas’ earnings from begging and prostitution, trapping gender non-conforming children (often abandoned) in bonded labour. Meanwhile, thousands of gender non-conforming children, abandoned or rejected by families, are thrust into exploitative hijra jamath gharanas, havelis, and dayars, where education is a distant dream; instead, and forced into begging and prostitution.

State police often refuse to register missing child complaints for gender non-conforming children, and there are no dedicated policies to address their vulnerability to trafficking and abuse. There is also no framework for reform, rehabilitation, or protection of minors within these systems. By protecting these colonial-era identities without evidence-based safeguards, the government is undermining earlier inclusive traditions.

The Bill contains no requirement for genetic counselling by medical geneticists before certification, intersex surgeries and health management. It offers no mandate for India-specific longitudinal studies on “affirming surgeries” and raises serious privacy concerns due to inadequate safeguards.

Instead of addressing the problems faced by diverse GIESC communities such as administrative barriers and unregulated medical practices which include gender-affirming surgeries and hormone therapies (Government of India promotes freely despite severe health risks) the Bill offers only superficial measures with little relevance to their needs. Despite the 2019 UN CRPD recommendations to prioritise intersex welfare and dignity, these concerns remain largely neglected.

No intersectionality

The Bill contains no intersectional lens for caste, disability, poverty or religion. Transgender persons from Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or disabled backgrounds will continue to face compounded discrimination with zero targeted remedies. It also fails to protect India’s family-dependent societal structures by skipping any requirement for rigorous, evidence-based research before policy changes. Most critically, the Bill is completely silent on civil and marriage rights of diverse GIESC identities. It offers no provisions for marriage, adoption, inheritance, divorce, or succession for transgender persons, leaving them without full legal recognition in family law, and perpetuating their exclusion from the very institutions that define citizenship and dignity in Indian society.

The 2026 Amendment Bill tightens some definitions and increases penalties for forced exploitation, but leaves every core structural flaw untouched — the hetero-normative erasure of diverse SOGIESC identities, the complete neglect of civil and marriage rights, the legal entrenchment of colonial hijra structures at the expense of ancient Indic heritage. India needs a scientific, culturally grounded approach that separates biological sex characteristics from gender identity, prioritises evidence over ideology, bans non-consensual intersex surgeries, ensures equal rights, dismantles exploitative systems, and protects the dignity of intersex persons and gender non-conforming children. The Constitution demands nothing less.

Gopi Shankar Madurai is a Special Monitor for Sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sexual characteristics (SOGIESC) Rights, National Human Rights Commission of India

Published – March 26, 2026 12:16 am IST