'Who are they to decide who I am?': Trans Community Up In Arms Against Identity Law Changes

Mona, a trans woman, was abandoned by her family as a child and found support within the care community, sheltered through the guru–chela kinship system. Now in her mid-40s, she says she is at a loss for words as the government has issued yet another legislative change that will upend her daily life.

“Just let me be,” Mona said, adding that she has barely slept or eaten and has been constantly anxious since the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha.

“Who are they to decide who I am?” she says, expressing frustration and helplessness. Mona, who relies on alms and is also a sex worker, said, “It feels like the government is saying that they know us better than we know ourselves. Why should I have to take off my clothes for any certificate?” She added that fundamental rights should not depend on official approval.

Mona was protesting at Jantar Mantar on what could have been an ordinary Thursday morning. Along with many other members of the queer community, she stood in solidarity, exchanging quiet hugs and reassuring smiles amid placards reading ‘Identity is not a diagnosis’ as they protested the Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, 2026.

A new amendment, which has been passed in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, proposes major changes to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, including removing the right to gender self-identification recognised by the Supreme Court in the landmark National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India in 2014 and introducing medical certification for identity recognition.

 Now, the Union government has presented the amendment as a move 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 framing of transgender identity now depends heavily on biological characteristics as the basis for eligibility, people from the queer community said.

“The government does not understand that the process of self-identity is an emotionally long and difficult journey in itself. To involve a bureaucratic procedure is just undignified,” Vanshika, a student who identifies as queer, said. 

The amendment alters the process for issuing identity certificates by the District Magistrate. Under Rule 4 of the Transgender Persons(Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, no medical or physical examination was required. The 2026 amendment, however, requires that the District Magistrate may issue a certificate only after considering the recommendation of a designated “authority” — a Medical Board headed by a Chief Medical Officer or Deputy Chief Medical Officer, appointed by the Central or State government, or the Union Territory administration.

Even after receiving the Board’s recommendation, the District Magistrate may seek the assistance of additional medical experts if deemed necessary. The amendment does not define who these experts may be.

Sameera*, a transwoman who came out to her family almost a year ago, sustains herself through alms. She continues to live with her family but manages her own finances. “I give blessings on the streets and earn around a thousand rupees every day, it is difficult to make a living as it is,” she said.

Sameera said that he is terrified of the amendments. “The police and authorities can do anything they want with our community under the garb of the law,” she said, adding that she is particularly concerned for closeted trans and queer individuals who do not have a community to rely on. 

“Why is the government so concerned with us? We do not bother anyone to make a living,” said Amrita. A transwoman who works in an office space said that she is not even demanding a certificate of identity, all she wants is to live peacefully.  

The amendments also include a change in the definition of a transgender person to “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; primary sexual characteristics; external genitalia; chromosomal patterns; gonadal development; endogenous hormone production or response, or such other medical conditions. 

Anamika, a University of Delhi student attending the protest, said she was shocked by the lack of discussion in Parliament over a Bill that affects so many, adding that the government does not seem to care about the very people it claims to define.

“This is also an attempt to ‘sanskritise’ under the Hindutva ideology, they have zero interest in knowing anything about any community. The government has only mentioned certain groups because they are mentioned in the Hindu religion, these terms are not benefiting anyone,” she claimed. 

Sharif Rangnekar, a human rights activist, described the development as a “bizarre turn of events”, pointing to what he called contradictions in the government’s stance. “It's even more shocking when the Prime Minister very recently proudly spoke about our transgender laws in this country and their welfare. The Chief Minister of Delhi is giving free bus rides to transgender people,” he said.

Rangnekar, one of the organisers of the protest, added that a landmark verdict like NALSA being disregarded raises serious concerns. “When a large section of the trans community can be just completely erased and ignored, we are quite convinced that the government and maybe the bureaucrats involved in scripting such laws don't even understand gender or sexuality,” he said, describing the developments as both alarming and deeply distressing.

He pointed out that the law could have serious consequences for those in the middle of transitioning or undergoing hormonal therapy, especially those who have only recently come out to their families. “Some parents had begun to accept their children because the law supported them,” he said, warning that the rollback could undo that acceptance.

He added that the Bill could embolden families to reject or even abuse trans individuals, while also giving them disproportionate power as “we live in a society where blood is thicker than water, which is not the case for everyone.” This, he said, could extend to filing complaints that may put “caring people”, including NGOs and mental health professionals, at risk of harassment or arrest.

Prerna, one of the volunteers at the protest concurs with Rangnekar. “Another heinous amendment not being talked about enough is the criminalisation of the care community, family, friends or chosen family,” she says. Prerna said that by imposing biology, the government is  erasing socio-cultural differences and diversity that exists amongst the community, adding that the amendment is a “human rights issue, not just a transgender issue.”

Surrounded by hundreds of queer people who had gathered in solidarity with the trans community, chanting for azadi from the amendments, Chirayu, a non-binary person still coming to terms with his sexuality, questioned the implications of the amendment. “Is this even a democracy?” he asked, adding that such changes undo years of progress that had begun to offer some sense of safety in metropolitan spaces like Delhi.

Originally from Rajasthan, Chirayu said he has found a measure of community and a safer space in the city, but the constant scrutiny and shifting laws leave him uneasy. “I am not ashamed of being queer, but I fear this,” he said.

*name changed to maintain anonymity.