'Hurried, Short-Sighted Decision': Why Has The Transgender Amendment Bill Sparked A Massive Row Explained

(MENAFN- Live Mint) Parliament has passed a bill to amend a law on the protection and rights of transgender persons that proposes excluding social orientations from the ambit of the statute. The Rajya Sabha gave its nod to the Bill on 25 March, even as opposition members pressed for sending it to a select committee.

The bill, which seeks to amend Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act 2019, also provides for graded punishment based on the gravity of harm inflicted on such people. The bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on 24 March.

** Also Read** | Transgender Bill: Parliamentary panel invites public suggestions

Replying to the debate, in the Upper House, Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Virendra Kumar said the proposed legislation is an effort to take along all segments of the society together. A motion moved by DMK MP Thiruchi Siva to refer the Bill to a select committee was not approved.

** Why is the amendment controversial?**

The Amendment Bill, seeks to amend the 2019 Act, including changes to the process of legal recognition of gender identity.

Critics, including several Opposition MPs, claim it dilutes the principle of self-perceived gender identity upheld by the Supreme Cour in its landmark 2014 NALSA judgment.

The Amendment Bill has sparked a row. A controversial amendment proposed by the Bill is to take away the right of self-determination of gender. The Bill omits persons with “self-perceived gender identities” from the definition of“transgender person,” legal news website LiveLaw reported.

The Bill seeks to narrow the definition of“transgender person”, modify the procedure for recognition of gender identity, and introduce stricter penal provisions for offences involving forced conversion of individuals into transgender identities through mutilation or coercion.

What changes in the Bill?

In the 2019 Act, a transgender person was defined as “whose gender does not match with the gender assigned to that person at birth and includes trans-man or trans-woman (whether or not such person has undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery or hormone therapy or laser therapy or such other therapy), person with intersex variations, genderqueer and person having such socio-cultural identities as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta”.

The definition has now been replaced with "(i) a person having such socio-cultural identities as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta, or eunuch, or a person with intersex variations specified below or a person who, at birth, has a congenital variation in one or more of the following sex characteristics as compared to male or female development:- (a) primary sexual characteristics; (b) external genitalia; © chromosomal patterns; (d) gonadal development; (e) endogenous hormone production or response, or such other medical conditions; or

ii) any person or child who has been, by force, allurement, inducement, deceit or undue influence, either with or without consent, compelled to assume, adopt, or outwardly present a transgender identity, by mutilation, emasculation, castration, amputation, or any surgical, chemical, or hormonal procedure or otherwise:

** Also Read** | Watch: Oppn MPs protest in Parliament complex over ‘LPG crisis’

Under Sections 5 and 6 of the 2019 Act, read with the Transgender Persons(Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, a transgender person could submit a form(as attested in the Act) and, based on that form, accompanied by an affidavit declaring the gender identity, the District Magistrate was responsible for issuing the certification of identity. It did not require any medical or physical examination as per Rule 4 of the 2020 Rules.

The 2026 amendment requires that the District Magistrate can only issue a certificate after examining the recommendation of the “authority”, which is a Medical Board, headed by a Chief Medical Officer or a Deputy Chief Medical Officer, as may be appointed either by the Central Government or the State Government of the UT administration, LiveLaw reported.

Even after the Medical Board’s recommendation, if the District Magistrate considers it necessary, he can seek assistance from other medical experts. Who these medical experts are has not been defined under the Amendment Act.

Has any medical board endorsed your gender? asks Renuka

During the debate in Rajya Sabha on Wednesday, Congress MP Renuka Chowdhury launched a sharp attack on the Union government, comparing the amendments to a“Special Intensive Revision (SIR) on transgender persons” and describing it as an exercise in discrimination rather than protection.

Chowdhury asked whether the gender self-identification that all MPs undertake when filling out official forms before entering Parliament is valid.

“All of us are gathered today and have the privilege of sitting in the Parliament, in Rajya Sabha, having been selected by the Council of States. I want to know, when we enter, we fill out a form where we are identified by our gender,” the Congress leader said.

Chowdhury said that the Amendment Bill undermines the hard-earned rights of the transgender community by moving away from self-identification towards greater bureaucratic and medical scrutiny.

“All of you have been self-declared; you have declared whether you are a man or a woman. Has any medical board endorsed that? Since we are to be considered privileged that nobody can question us about our gender identity, but we will question the transgender and empower policing of the States, that they will go and identify a human being who has the same constitutional right as you and I?” she asked.

What was the hurry, asks Anish Gawande

Activists questioned the government over what they called a ‘hurried and short-sighted decision’ to pass the bill in the Rajya Sabha as well.

NCP-SP leader Anish Gawande alleged the bill was passed without any concrete response to several valid concerns raised by the opposition, which shows the government’s unwillingness to listen to constructive criticism."

“What was the hurry to bring about the amendments when the world is burning around us? When there is war in West Asia, an LPG crisis back home, and a rupee free fall that government refuses to acknowledge,” asked Gawande, the country’s first openly gay national spokesperson of a political party.

** Also Read** | Two dozen transgender persons in Indore attempt ‘mass suicide’. Here’s why

Gawande also questioned the government’s claims about protecting the transgender community from exploitation by bringing in the bill.

“The government’s argument of preventing the misuse is absurd, What misuse are you talking about when there has been no use of the law,” he told LiveMint.

This bill is highly unacceptable. This is against my people, my community. This is against our legal rights and identity.

Grace Banu, a Dalit transgender activist, strongly opposed the bill. “I do not accept this. I will fight against this. This bill is highly unacceptable. This is against my people, my community. This is against our legal rights and identity,” Banu told news agency PTI.

(With inputs from PTI and LiveLaw)

MENAFN26032026007365015876ID1110908439