Transgender Persons Amendment Bill: Parliament passes bill to amend transgender law; two members of council for TG persons quit in protest | India News

New Delhi: On a day when Parliament gave its stamp of approval to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2026, amid demands by opposition MPs that the bill be referred to a standing committee for wider consultation, two National Councils for Transgender Persons of the community sent their resignations to the Social Justice Minister. Virendra Kumar To document their strong protest against the bill and lack of consultation. The bill provides a more precise definition of “transgender persons” that clarifies that it will not include persons with “a different sexual orientation and self-perceived sexual identity.”“From NCTP, some of us tried to reach out to you as the voice of the community and we felt that we were not heard,” said Rituparna Neog, member of the North-East Region Council in her resignation letter addressed to Kumar who is the chairperson of the statutory body. The body is supposed to have around 10 members representing the transgender community.Another member who resigned, Kalaki Subramaniam, who represents the southern region, registered a strong protest over the lack of consultation with the community who see the bill as “regressive” and “a step back for their fundamental rights to self-identity and dignity”. “I cannot hold a seat at a table where our collective voice is silenced,” he added.The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, which was passed by the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, was passed by a voice vote in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday. Congress Party’s Renuka Chowdhury opened the discussion with a stirring question – “If no one asks us – men and women to prove our gender before the medical board, then who are we to question the identity of trans people?”At the end of the discussion, Minister Virendra Kumar reiterated that the Bill aims to provide protection only to those who face serious social discrimination due to their biological condition. He sought to oppose the removal of the clause on self-identity and the introduction of a medical board, saying that it was aimed at protecting the rights of TG persons by removing any scope for ambiguity and enabling benefits to reach genuine persons through administrative clarity. BJP members joined the chorus in support.The amendments, which will now become law after the President of India gives his assent, mark a significant departure from the existing law as it omits clauses that allow “self-perceived gender identity” to be the basis of identification for self-determination and approval of transgender certificates by district magistrates.A Medical Board headed by the Chief Medical Officer is set up, and the District Magistrate, after examining the recommendations of the said Medical Board as an “authority” constituted by the Central or State Government, will issue a certificate of transgender identity.The bill proposes to create specific offenses with graded penalties that reflect the gravity of harm, the irreversibility of injury and the particular vulnerability of child victims.DMK’s Tiruchi Shiva who brought a private member’s bill “The Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014” reflected the community’s struggle to get their rights and demanded a select committee review along with consultation of stakeholders, legal experts, civil society, transgender community. Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD), Saket Gokhale (TMC), CPI(M) MP John Brittas, NCP-SCP leader Fauzia Khan, Jaya Bachchan (SP), Shiv Sena-UBT’s Priyanka Chaturvedi, Sanjay Singh And Sandeep Pathak of AAP, Abdul Wahab of IUML and others strongly opposed the bill.Even YSR Congress Party’s Golla Babu Rao and BJD’s Subhashish Khuntia joined the chorus along with other opposition members and demanded that the bill be sent to a parliamentary committee for stakeholder consultation.The first signs of community backlash emerged soon after the bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha as two NCTP members resigned. Also community members who have been agitating through press conferences and publicity campaigns since the introduction of the bill, are now planning to hit the streets with protests across the state. In his resignation letter addressed to the Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, Kalki Subramaniam said, “Till February 2026, the experience of working side-by-side with officials of the ministry was a mutual respect and a shared vision for an inclusive India. However, the recent introduction and preparation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2020.”“As a statutory representative, my primary mandate is to advise the government on laws that affect our lives. “The decision to push this bill without any formal consultation with myself or other community representatives of the NCTP undermines the very purpose for which this council was established,” he added. Opposing the bill passed by Parliament, in her resignation Rituparna Neog said, “Though I understand my responsibility as an NCTP member to present the voice of my community to the competent authorities, but given the current situation, I do not wish to continue as a member.”On Saturday, four members of the NCTP, Abhina Aher, Vidya Rajput, Raveena Bareha and Subramiyam, in a hastily called meeting by senior ministry officials on Saturday strongly reiterated that “self-affirmation of transgender identity, as upheld in the NALSA judgment, must be the basis of transgender identity”.After the meeting, the members pointed out the absence of Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar, who was reported to be presiding over the meeting. “We were told that the minister could not attend due to ill health and a reported family emergency,” Aher said.According to Aher, in the meeting chaired by the ministry’s senior economic advisor joint secretary Yogita Swarup, government officials raised concerns about identifying “genuine” transgender individuals and referred to biological markers such as chromosomal combination (XX/XY). “NCTP members clarified the concept of gender nonconformity/dysphoria, mental health aspects and the impact of stigma, though they felt that a gap in understanding of transgender issues was observed among officials,” he added.TG Council members also emphasized in the meeting that the definition of transgender person in the bill is not inclusive and should clearly include transgender men and transgender women; Use respectful terminology and recognize different regional identities such as Nupi Manabi and Nupi Manba (Manipur).Regarding the bill’s provision to introduce screening by a medical board, NCTP members initially called for the removal of this provision. “However, considering the government’s position, members suggested that any assessment should be limited to mental health support, should not include invasive physical examination, and should uphold dignity and be consistent with the NALSA judgment,” Aher said. The need for gender-neutral laws to address violence against transgender persons was also strongly raised.Now that the bill has been passed by Parliament without heeding any suggestions made by NCTP member representatives, the community has announced demonstrations and protests starting from Thursday.