The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 is now an Act. It is not the law of the land yet—for that to happen, the government will need to issue a notification declaring that the Act is in force. However, even though the amended Act isn’t yet operational, its shadow is looming large over the trans community.
The primary cause for concern is Section 18 of the amended Act, which introduces new criminal provisions centred on punishing those accused of “compelling” a person to adopt transgender presentations or identities.
In the original 2019 Act, this section outlined four kinds of violations. These included forcing a trans person into bonded labour; endangering their life and well-being, including through physical and sexual abuse; denying them access to public places; and forcing a trans person to leave their household or village. All these provisions had one thing in common: they were intended to protect transgender persons. By contrast, the four new provisions now included under this section in the amended Act can be weaponised against trans people and their allies.
Two of these provisions involve offences against children, and the other two, offences against adults. While the former carry harsher penalties, they all criminalise the same acts:
- kidnapping and forcing a person to undergo medical or chemical procedures that alter their body, with the intent of forcing them to adopt a transgender identity; and
- forcing a person to present as transgender and engaging them in begging, sex work, or forced labour of any kind.
As queerbeat has earlier reported, these provisions are anchored in colonial-era stereotypes that cast trans people as predators. Official records such as National Crime Records Bureau data do not record cases of such abductions, making it impossible to assess their scale.
Now, there is widespread fear among the trans community that these provisions could be used to criminalise the very people who support them—their friends and family members, NGOs, healthcare workers, and support groups.
Since the Trans Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament in early March, I participated in several legal aid sessions and consultations, both online and in person, to support trans persons, NGOs, and activists in my capacity as a lawyer. During these consultations, some trans persons reported that their gender-affirming care had been paused because their doctors were apprehensive about the criminal provisions in the Act. Other community members expressed fears of losing legal recognition and protections, and of facing increased police harassment. They also articulated their anxieties around the potential closure of shelter homes and the loss of support from NGOs due to fears of surveillance and persecution.
Amid this atmosphere of apprehension and uncertainty, it is vital to note that—going by the letter of the law—Section 18 of the Act does not criminalise NGOs, friends, doctors, or support group members who assist transgender individuals. The new offences introduced in Section 18 are targeted at kidnapping, coercion, trafficking, and forced labour, not at voluntary affiliation, consensual medical care, or community support.
The provisions do not criminalise presenting as a trans person or supporting someone in doing so. Inducing a person to adopt a transgender identity can be penalised, but only if it is against that person’s will or if it further involves forcing them into begging, sex work, or any other form of forced labour.
But regardless of what the letter of the law says, the fear that it has created in the community is not misplaced. In India, trans people have historically been the target of the state’s harassment, surveillance, and violence. A 2016 Ministry of Health and Family Welfare survey covering 5,588 transgender persons across 11 states found that 21 percent of those who had experienced physical violence in the year preceding the survey identified police officials as the perpetrators. Only 5 percent of respondents reported the violence they had experienced to the police. As an earlier queerbeat story noted, the prejudicial attitudes of police officers have made it almost impossible for trans people to seek justice when crimes are committed against them.
Historian Jessica Hinchy, author of the book Governing Gender and Sexuality in Colonial India: The Hijra, C.1850–1900, argues that such discriminatory attitudes are a legacy of colonial-era laws such as the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, which classified gender non-conforming people as criminals by default. Although the law has since been repealed, Jessica notes in a 2019 essay for Himal Southasian,that “it continues to inform the treatment of Hijras by the Indian state, and parts of the original act have been reintroduced through legislation adopted by different states in independent India.”
Given the state’s well-documented history of persecuting trans persons, the trans community is understandably anxious that the vague wording of Section 18 could be used against them. “Even before this law, there have been repeated attacks and false cases filed, often by natal families or others, accusing community members and organisations of kidnapping or abduction, simply for supporting transgender persons,” said Vihaan Vee, an Ambedkarite queer feminist trans man and development sector professional. “This new law risks giving further legitimacy to such misuse.”
There is a real danger that the criminal provisions of the amended Trans Act could be interpreted very broadly by law enforcement agencies. People might be arbitrarily arrested, and proving their innocence could involve a long and difficult trial. The offences described in the new criminal provisions are non-bailable—in such cases, bail is not a mere administrative formality that can be handled by a police station, but a matter that must be argued for and secured in a court.
As Kanmani R, a trans woman and lawyer at the Madras High Court, pointed out, the amended Act could also lead to an increase in baseless complaints against those who support trans people. “When the law comes into force, it will put trans persons in problems because it sets up mob justice mechanisms where people can file innumerable complaints against trans persons, employers, schools, colleges, NGOs, home owners, and shelter homes,” she said.
But fear, Vihaan argued, could not be a justification for the withdrawal of essential services and support for trans people. “These provisions apply only in the absence of consent,” he said. “Healthcare providers must continue offering gender-affirmative care. It is valid, necessary, and cannot be stopped. NGOs and community organisations must continue providing support, crisis response, and shelter services while taking necessary precautions and strengthening consent processes.”
To help trans people, their allies, and service providers understand this law and protect themselves against it, queerbeat has put together the following plain-language breakdown of the Act’s criminal provisions under Section 18.
Section 18(a)–(d): Existing protections for transgender persons under the 2019 Act
The protections laid out in the original 2019 Trans Act for the four outlined categories of violence against trans people have all been retained. But only those who fit the new definition of “transgender persons” are protected under the amended Act. This definition includes a few specific socio-cultural identities, such as hijra, kinnar, aravani, and jogta, as well as persons with intersex variations. Trans people who don’t belong to these specific identities are excluded by the law.
However, Section 2(k)(ii) of the amended Act suggests that those have already medically transitioned, especially those who also have transgender identity cards, will be recognised as transgender. It is important to note that Section 2(k)(ii) is quite ambiguous and contradictory in its wording. Its exact interpretation will have to be clarified by the courts.
This does not mean that those who have been excluded will have no legal protection. They would be able to seek remedy against almost all of these offences included in the Act under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Special laws, such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can also be invoked by some trans persons depending on their legally recognised gender and caste status, while other special laws—like the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 are available to all.
However, there is an important exception: the BNS provisions that criminalise rape and sexual assault are gendered. Because of this, only persons who have been assigned female at birth (AFAB) are protected by it. This would also include AFAB transgender persons who have not legally transitioned as well as assigned male at birth (AMAB) persons who have legally transitioned and are recognised as female.
Trans persons who were assigned male at birth and have not legally transitioned would have no specific legal recourse to sexual violence perpetrated against them. At most, they would be able to access BNS provisions relating to physical assault, battery, grievous hurt, wrongful restraint, hurt, or criminal force. queerbeat has previously reported on this glaring gap in India’s sexual violence laws.
Section 18(e): Offences against adults for kidnapping combined with bodily injury
Section 18(e) of the amended Act includes punishments for any individual found guilty of kidnapping an adult person and causing them grievous hurt—including mutilation; emasculation; castration; amputation; surgical, chemical, or hormonal procedures; as well as any severe bodily injuries. While the earlier clauses under Section 18 of the Act recognise those who are defined as trans persons as potential victims, this particular clause recognises any adult person as a possible victim. For the offences that this clause describes to be punishable under the amended Act, they must be committed with the intent of compelling the affected person to adopt a transgender identity.
In other words, for Section 18(e) to be used to punish someone, the following conditions must be fulfilled:
- a kidnapping or abduction needs to have occurred,
- The accused person must have inflicted on bodily harm on the person they are compelling to assume a transgender identity, and
- that compulsion must be against the will of the person adopting a transgender identity
If a person voluntarily undergoes a medical procedure—including those listed in this section—the absence of coercion means that such a procedure cannot be considered an offence.
A generous reading of Section 18 would be that it targets traffickers and coercion, not doctor–patient relationships or community support. But its ambiguous phrasing could make such persons targets for prosecution too.
For example, one of the means of compelling a person to adopt a transgender identity that the Act mentions is “allurement.” This is an extremely broad term that can be interpreted in many ways based on a judge’s subjective opinion. If a trans person is experiencing gender dysphoria and their friend encourages them to consider transitioning, the person’s transphobic natal family could accuse the friend of “allurement.” Similarly, offering that person space could be interpreted as “kidnapping.”
Section 18(f): Offences against children for kidnapping combined with bodily injury
Section 18(f) is identical to 18(e) except that it applies to children. The previous clause’s qualification that an accused person must be acting “against the will or consent” of the person affected is absent in this clause.
Section 18(g): Offences against adults for forced trans presentation combined with forced labour
A person accused under Section 18(g) would be punished if they are found guilty of compelling a person—trans or cis—to present as transgender against their will, and of forcing them into labour of any kind. Like 18(e), this clause also lays out multiple conditions that must be met before it can be used to prosecute someone:
- the accused person should have forced a person to present as transgender against their will and
- the accused person must have forced the person presenting as trans to engage in forced labour.
As noted earlier, a person who is found to have forced a trans person into labour can be punished under Section 18(a). Section 18 (g), on the other hand, criminalises the combination of compelling someone to present as trans and exploiting that presentation through forced labour. Importantly, this provision cannot be applied if the affected person has consented to presenting as trans or is engaging in their work voluntarily.
This is the theory. But in practice, this provision can cause severe harm. By linking a person’s presentation as transgender to a criminal act, it supports the idea that such a presentation is something that can be forcefully imposed. In doing so, the provision builds on and furthers negative stereotypes about trans people, especially hijras, such as the idea that they forcefully induct people into their collectives.
Much like Section 18(e), this clause too is very vague in its construction.
Language such as “assume, adopt, or outwardly present a transgender identity” and “dress, present, or conduct themselves outwardly as a transgender person” can be interpreted differently by different police officials and judges.
Presenting outwardly as transgender, in particular, is a vague condition because there is no specific presentation to a transgender person. To suggest that there exist certain transgender presentations that are valid, and others that are not is offensive.
Since the act only defines “transgender person,” and not “transgender identity,” this provision could be read to include identities the Act’s definition has excluded—such as trans man, trans woman and genderqueer. This is yet another instance of ambiguous phrasing in the amendments, which will require judicial intervention to clarify.
Section 18(h): Offences against children for forced trans presentation combined with forced labour
This is a version of Section 18 (g) that applies to children, with the recognition of consent removed.
How trans people and allies can potentially protect themselves
For medical professionals, NGOs, support organisations, and gharanas: The consent of the trans person functions as a complete defence against the coercion element contained in the provisions of Section 18.
The government concurs with this reading of the law. In a written statement submitted in the Rajya Sabha on 1 April 2026, B.L. Verma, the Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment said that “provisions relating to forced conversions are intended to prevent abuse, coercion and exploitation, including instances of forced bodily harm or compelled identity and are not intended to restrict legitimate gender-affirmative care.”
Therefore, without coercion, there is no offence under Sections 18(e) or (g). Healthcare workers, NGOs, and other support organisations can document the clear consent of the trans person they are supporting to ensure legal proof of non-coercion.
Whose consent they seek is important too. Kanmani—who works with civil society collectives to sensitise doctors and other hospital staff—pointed out that some doctors ask for parental consent, spousal consent, or consent from NGOs before offering gender-affirming care. This, she said, is not required and is illegal since clear consent from the transgender person receiving medical care is the only consent that matters under the law.
But documenting consent is not a definitive solution to prevent harassment by law enforcement agencies. Kanmani pointed out that some trans community groups are not in favour of the practice as it is not a legal requirement and increases barriers to access. It is important for service providers and service seekers to consult a lawyer, local NGO, or Community-Based Organisation (CBO) to ensure that the protection measures they take are tailored to their specific circumstances.
For trans persons: None of the provisions under the Act can be used, as per the letter of the law, to prosecute trans persons for simply presenting as trans. This includes trans persons whose identities are not mentioned in the amended Act, or those who do not have trans certificates that bear binary markers.
Even Section 18(g)(i), which explicitly mentions trans presentations, can be used to prosecute someone only if a person is found to have forced someone to present as trans against their will.
Any person who has legal identification of their transgender identity—such as a transgender identity card or gazette notification—has clear proof that they present as transgender by their own choice. Even in the cases of trans persons who do not have official identity cards, the provision cannot be invoked against those who support them unless there is an element of forced labour.
Since the new amendments severely restrict who will be legally recognised as transgender, official identity cards will be extremely hard for many people to access. In such cases, trans persons who are leaving their homes or seeking shelter at an NGO or at a friend’s could write a letter to their local police station or create an affidavit that affirms their decision to do so of their own free will.
However, trans persons should be cautious of what details they give out in such letters, as these could potentially be used to harass or target them. Again, it is advisable to consult with a lawyer, CBO or activist before drafting such a letter. Varta Trust maintains an online database for queer-friendly health and legal services. Local NGOs, CBOs and shelter homes are also likely to have contacts for lawyers.
The way forward for the movement
Legal challenges against the amendments have already been filed in several high courts across the country and in the Supreme Court. While these cases make their way through the judicial process, it is vital that queer and trans activists and allies simultaneously work towards specific structural changes that will help prevent the misuse of Section 18.
Kanmani said that the government should inform and sensitise police officers about the exact provisions of the law to prevent it from becoming a tool of harassment and intimidation. “Several police stations, even today, do not listen to the will and consent of an adult transgender person,” she said.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 mandated the creation of Transgender Protection Cells at the district level “to monitor cases of offences against transgender persons and to ensure timely registration, investigation and prosecution of such offences.” So far, government data shows that only 20 such cells have been set up. The government, Kanmani added, should also address this gap to “make sure that sensitisation of the police happens from within.”
Kanmani also referred to an order issued by the Tamil Nadu government in 2022 on the direction of the Madras High Court that amended police conduct rules to prevent harassment of members of the queer community. She argued that more states should implement similar measures.
It is likely going to be a long battle, and as we prepare to fight it, it is important that trans people and their allies understand the law as well their rights so that Section 18 is not misused against them.
Vihaan Vee summed up the need of the hour. “We do not ignore the risk, but we also do not retreat in fear. This moment demands that we stand closer, strengthen our networks, and keep showing up for our communities, because now, more than ever, our work is urgent, necessary, and powerful.”