New Delhi [India], March 24 : The Lok Sabha on Tuesday passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill 2026, amending the original 2019 Act, with a voice vote.
The Bill was introduced by the Social Justice and Empowerment Minister, Virendra Kumar.
The Bill alters the definition of transgender person to exclude several individuals.
According to the statement of the objects and reasons for the bill, it is the legislative policy to recognise a specific class of transgender persons, who face social issues and to create a regime for their protection. The legislative policy was and is intended to protect only those who face severe social exclusion due to biological reasons for no fault of their own and no choice of their own.
The definition of a transgender person as per the Bill reads, "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; (c) chromosomal patterns; (d) gonadal development; (e) endogenous hormone production or response, or such other medical conditions."
The Bill also includes transgender persons coerced into their gender identity by any sort of force; however, it excludes people who "self-perceive" as transgender persons, as Section 3 of the Amendment Bill omits Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act.
With the amendments, the District Magistrate can issue a certificate of identity only after examining the recommendation of the authority and, after taking the assistance of other medical experts, if needed.
The Lok Sabha has been adjourned till 11 am on Wednesday.
The Bill was initially introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 14 and was met with protests from transgender persons across the nation.
Earlier today, Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra expressed disappointment for the Bill not being sent to a standing committee.
"I really think that it's unfortunate that they are not sending it to the standing committee. What the community feels is that this bill is going to obliterate their identity, and therefore it was very, very important that they should have been consulted and that this bill that is being brought about should have taken place or should have been passed after proper consultation. I think it's very unfair that the entire community feels like they have not been consulted, and such a big decision is being taken in their context. I wish the government had listened and put it on the standing committee," she said.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor