SC Panel Seeks Withdrawal Of Transgender Bill, Flags Breach Of NALSA Ruling

A Supreme Court-constituted advisory committee, headed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon, has sent a resolution to the Government of India requesting the withdrawal of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. The committee flagged that the proposal to “deny self-identification” of gender contravenes the Supreme Court’s 2014 NALSA v Union of India verdict.

Introduced by Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar on March 13, the Bill seeks to remove the provision recognising transgender persons’ “right to a self-perceived gender identity”, redefine who qualifies as transgender, and mandate approval from a medical board to obtain a transgender certificate and identity card. It was passed by voice vote in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday (March 24, 2026), amid an Opposition walkout over the proposed changes.

Since its introduction, transgender communities across the country have reacted strongly. Rights groups, community leaders, and collectives of feminist groups, lawyers, mental health professionals, and human rights advocates have all voiced opposition to the amendments to the 2019 law.

The Bill is scheduled for consideration and passage in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday (March 25).

The Lok Sabha on Tuesday passed a Bill to amend the law on the protection and rights of transgender persons, even as Opposition members raised concerns that the proposed legislation excludes social orientations from its scope.

Replying to the debate on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Virendra Kumar said the legislation is intended to protect only those who face social boycott due to biological factors. He maintained that the amendment would ensure continued legal recognition and protection for transgender persons.

Kumar also noted that while the 2019 law prescribed a maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment, the amendment increases this to up to 14 years, along with a penalty.

Ahead of the Bill’s passage, the House rejected amendments moved by Opposition members through a voice vote.

While the government maintained that the objective is to strengthen protections, the Opposition criticised the Bill for taking away the right to self-determination of identity, including for gay and lesbian individuals, and called for it to be referred to a standing committee for wider consultations.

(with inputs from The Hindu and PTI)