Published Mar 26, 2026 | 1:16 PM ⚊ Updated Mar 26, 2026 | 1:16 PM
The Union government went ahead with the Bill ignoring the concerns raised by activists and experts.
Synopsis: The committee raised concerns over several provisions in the Transgender Bill, especially the removal of the scope for self-identification of gender and confidential medical information.
A Supreme Court-appointed committee has asked the Union government to withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.
The Rajya Sabha passed the Bill on Wednesday, 25 March.
The committee, headed by retired Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon, reportedly wrote to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, outlining concerns over several provisions in the amendment and requested it to reconsider the law, Bar & Bench reported on Thursday, 26 March.
A Supreme Court bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan had set up the Transgender Rights Advisory Committee last year. The panel was constituted while hearing a case involving the alleged discrimination against a transgender teacher whose appointment had been terminated because of her gender identity.
The committee was tasked with examining the barriers faced by transgender persons in employment, healthcare, and access to public services, besides recommending measures to improve the implementation of the 2019 law.
The Justice Menon committee raised several concerns, including the impact of the amendments on how the law would recognise transgender persons and the handling of their personal information.
The earlier law allowed individuals to self-identify as transgender persons based on their gender identity, meaning one need not undergo surgery or prove biological conditions. The amendment, however, narrowed it to biological characteristics or medical processes, effectively removing the scope for self-identification.
This amendment required individuals to undergo surgery or meet specified biological criteria to obtain official recognition, thereby hampering their access to identity documents or welfare schemes.
The new law nullifying self-identification, the committee noted, might conflict with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment of 2014, which recognised the right of individuals to identify their gender.
Raising privacy concerns, the committee reportedly noted that under the new law, hospitals performing gender-affirming surgeries must share details of such procedures with the relevant district authorities.
This would result in the government recording the details of those undergoing such medical procedures. The committee flagged this provision since it felt it raised confidentiality concerns.
Meanwhile, in a separate but related development, more than 140 lawyers and feminists sent an urgent appeal to the President of India on Thursday, 26 March, against giving assent to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.
The appeal urged the President to withhold her assent to the Bill by exercising her power under Article 111 of the Constitution of India and instead send it back to Parliament for reconsideration.
