Supreme Court-appointed panel asks Centre to withdraw new Transgender Amendment Bill

A committee set up by the Supreme Court to examine transgender rights has asked the Union government to withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, which was recently passed by Parliament.

This comes even as the bill was passed by the parliament on Wednesday.

Bar & Bench has learnt that the committee, headed by retired Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon, has written to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment highlighting concerns about several provisions in the amendment and requesting reconsideration of the law.

The concerns raised by the committee relate to major changes introduced under the new amendment. These changes affect how transgender persons are recognised under law and how their personal information is handled.

Removal of self-identification

One of the key concerns raised by the committee relates to the removal of self-identification as a basis for recognising transgender persons.

Under the earlier framework, individuals could identify themselves as transgender based on their own gender identity. This meant that a person did not have to undergo surgery or prove biological conditions to obtain recognition.

The amendment narrows this position. It links recognition largely to biological characteristics or medical processes.

This means that individuals who identify as transgender but have not undergone surgery or do not meet specified biological criteria may face difficulty obtaining official recognition.

Without such recognition, the committee said, accessing identity documents or government welfare schemes meant for transgender persons could become more difficult.

The committee noted that the proposed definition appears to recognise only persons born with specified congenital variations or those who have undergone surgery to change gender to male or female.

It indicated that this could exclude individuals who identify as transgender but do not fall within these categories, including those who undergo gender-affirming surgery, hormone therapy or counselling after not identifying with their assigned gender at birth.

Medical certification and privacy concerns

The committee has also raised concerns about privacy.

Under the amended law, medical institutions performing gender-affirming surgeries may be required to share details of such procedures with district authorities. This means that information relating to gender-affirming treatment could be recorded with the government.

The amendment also introduces a structured medical certification system.

Under this system, identity certificates will be issued by district magistrates based on recommendations from designated medical authorities. The committee indicated that this requirement raises concerns about confidentiality of medical information.

Concerns over new penal provisions

The panel also questioned the need for additional penal provisions introduced under the amendment.

It noted that several of the offences proposed under the revised law are already covered under existing criminal statutes.

The amendment strengthens punishments for offences such as forced identity, abduction and exploitation. These offences now carry higher penalties than under the earlier law.

Possible conflict with Supreme Court ruling

The committee further pointed out that removing self-identification from the law may 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 own gender.

It has recommended that any future amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 be made only after wider consultation with transgender communities and stakeholders.

A Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan had set up the transgender rights advisory committee last year while hearing a case involving discrimination against a transgender teacher whose appointment had been terminated because of her gender identity.

The Court had directed the committee to examine barriers faced by transgender persons in employment, healthcare and access to public services and to suggest measures to improve implementation of the 2019 law.