Even as the queer community and activists across India voice strong opposition, the Centre on Monday notified that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, introducing key changes to the country’s foundational transgender rights law, has received the assent of President Droupadi Murmu.
The notification read, “(1) This Act may be called the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.” The law will take effect on a date that will be announced by the central government.
The amendment expands the definition to include socio-cultural identities like kinner, hijra and aravani, as well as intersex persons, while excluding those based on sexual orientation or self-perceived identity. It also covers individuals forced into a transgender identity through interventions, signalling a more medicalised framework, an approach that has drawn criticism from the transgender community over issues of inclusion.
The amendment significantly revises Section 2 of the Act, expanding the definition of “appropriate government” to clarify roles across the Centre, states and UTs, and introducing “authority” as a government-constituted medical board led by senior medical officers.
Protests against the amendment have been led by queer collectives, transgender rights groups, and civil society organisations across several parts of India, who argue that the law marks a step back from the principle of self-identification affirmed in the NALSA vs Union of India ruling. Demonstrations, online campaigns, and statements from activists have highlighted concerns that requiring medical board certification could subject transgender persons to invasive scrutiny and bureaucratic hurdles.
The Rajasthan High Court on the other hand raised concerns that the new law could reduce gender identity to a “State-mediated entitlement,” stressing that selfhood is a fundamental right, not a concession. Hearing a plea by trans woman Ganga Kumari on OBC classification and reservation, the court warned that making legal recognition contingent on certification could dilute constitutional guarantees and the principles laid down in the NALSA judgment.
