A little past 4 pm on 24 March 2026, opposition voices dissolved into a restless din as the Lok Sabha began its discussion on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill. One word rang out over the cacophony: hadbadi (haste). “Rome is burning, literally, we don’t have gas cylinders,” Supriya Sule, working president of the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar faction), or NCP–SP, said during her speech. “When the world is at war right now, I don’t see why this urgency of this Bill.”
If there is one constant to the choppy trajectory of the Trans Bill 2026, it is this inexplicable rush. Introduced by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar in the Lok Sabha on 13 March, protested by queer rights groups across the country in the weeks that followed, and disavowed even by members of the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP)—a statutory body meant to advise the government on policies relating to trans and intersex people—the Bill was passed by voice vote amid a walkout by Opposition Members of Parliament.
The Bill seeks to amend the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which codified the civil rights of the country’s trans citizens. As queerbeat has earlier reported, its amendments undermine the Supreme Court’s landmark 2014 judgement in NALSA vs Union of India, which affirmed that trans persons have the absolute right to self-identify their gender. The Bill recommends a restrictive definition of trans persons that excludes transgender men, many trans women who don’t identify with the cultural identities listed in the Bill, and genderqueer people. It also gives state-appointed medical experts and district magistrates the power to determine whether a trans person’s identity is legally valid. It expands the 2019 Act’s existing list of punishable offences, adding provisions that reinforce stereotypes about trans persons and could likely be misused to criminalise them. Meanwhile, it does nothing to increase existing protections against violence or harassment for trans persons, which have been widely criticised as inadequate.
This effectively means that the government has moved one step closer to dismantling years of trans rights advocacy, say queer activists. It has put at stake the autonomy and safety of lakhs of trans persons across the country. And it appears to have done so under a haze of contradictory claims.
Consider, for instance, what the BJP leader and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said just before the discussion on the Trans Bill began. Another discussion involving the Finance Bill 2026, which implements the Union Budget, was underway at that point. Rijiju suggested that this debate be deferred to the next day so that the remaining time could be used for the Trans Bill. Opposition MPs chimed in. They pointed out that they had already urged, during a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee—which allocates time for matters before the House—that the Trans Bill be sent to a select committee for review first. “We request again the minister [Rijiju] to do that necessary thing,” said one politician.
Rijiju acknowledged that politicians from the Congress, All India Trinamool Congress (TMC), Samajwadi Party (SP), and NCP–SP had made this combined request. The government’s proposed amendments were “not very big,” he said in defence. He added that an “extensive discussion” has already happened on the Bill, and “the amendments that have been brought have been brought only after there has been a meaningful discussion about them in the standing committee [on social justice and empowerment] over the past year.”
But the accounts of four members from the standing committee—including its chairman and BJP leader PC Mohan—contradict this claim.
When queerbeat asked Mohan whether the Bill was discussed by the standing committee earlier, he said, “No, it was not.” VS Matheswaran, an MP from the Kongunadu Makkal Desia Katchi party, said, “I have been on that committee since 2024… we have not considered such a subject till now.” Referring to the Bill, Matheswaran added, “The government has taken a very wrong stand on this issue.” Sashikant Senthil, a Congress MP from Tiruvallur in Tamil Nadu, also told queerbeat that there had been “no major discussion” on the Bill in the standing committee. “Maybe some level of scrutiny would have happened,” he added. “The kind of scrutiny that it needs, I don’t think that has happened in our tenure.” Mitali Bag, a Lok Sabha MP from the TMC, said that “no such discussion” had taken place until the last meeting she had attended, which was in February. She added that she had been unable to attend some meetings as her mother had passed away.
(queerbeat requested Rijiju for comment over email. This copy will be updated if he responds.)
As the Bill heads to the Rajya Sabha for another debate later today, queerbeat interviewed nearly 15 people who have opposed the Bill—including trans activists, members of the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP), and politicians. “I was shocked,” TMC leader June Maliah, who participated in the Lok Sabha discussion, told queerbeat. “Within three hours, the discussion had to be completed, the Bill passed, and that was it… this is a mockery.”
Trans people across the country grappled with fear and uncertainty, even as they braced themselves for what lies ahead. “This is more than a black day,” said Nikunj Jain, a trans man and activist from Madhya Pradesh. “Let’s not lose hope yet; we need to work with more rigour, and all our allies should come forward in this struggle… people who work with women and children and parents… everyone should join this fight,” he added.
Kalki Subramaniam, a trans activist and member of the NCTP, echoed this sentiment. “This Bill is not the end… we have already broken homophobic laws; this transphobic Bill will also be broken,” she said. Priya Patil, programme manager at the trans rights organisation Kinnar Maa Samajik Sanstha and Maharashtra President of the NCP–SP’s LGBT Wing, said she was counting on the courts. “We will need to rebirth the collective movement again and take it forward,” she told queerbeat. “We need a large-scale protest along with thinking about the legal provisions that can be applied… and knock on the door of the judiciary.”
Dissecting the Opposition’s debate
The time allocated for the discussion on the Trans Bill in the Lok Sabha was three hours. It was debated for just under two and a half hours before it was passed. Of the 15 MPs who participated, 11—all from Opposition parties—demanded that it be withdrawn or sent to a standing committee for further review. The opposing MPs criticised the Bill’s rollback of trans persons’ right to self-determination, its imposition of medical gate-keeping of their identities, and its potential to criminalise them. Some raised the need for reservations for trans persons in education, housing, and employment.
As Kumar presented the Bill for consideration, he reiterated the Trans Bill’s justification for its amendments: that government benefits extend “only for people who face social ostracisation because of their biological condition.” He added that there had been cases of “adults and children being kidnapped,” which had caused them “physical harm” and forced them “to beg and take on transgender identity.” (As queerbeat has earlier reported, there is no clear data on the actual scale of such abductions in official records.)
The political parties that opposed the Bill included the Indian National Congress, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), Shiv Sena (Uddhav Bal Thackeray), Rashtra Janata Dal (RJD), SP, TMC, and NCP–SP. Of these, the Congress had the highest representation, with five MPs participating in the discussion.
Jothimani Sennimalai, the Congress MP from Karur in Tamil Nadu, led the charge. “Let us be clear: this Bill is not a reform, this Bill is a regression,” she said. “It deletes the right of self-determination; it tells its citizens, ‘You are not who you say you are until the state approves you.’”
DMK leader and Lok Sabha MP from Chennai South constituency Thamizhachi Thangapandian—also known as Sumathy—struck a similar note. “It is a Bill that pretends to protect while actually narrowing identity, expanding surveillance, and reintroducing state control over the most personal truth a human being can hold: who they are,” she said. Countering the Bill’s claims of seeking to reach “genuine” trans persons, she said: “Is discrimination against trans men less severe? Is violence against non-binary persons less real?”
The debate found its sharpest edge on the Bill’s contentious introduction of medical examinations for trans persons. Cis men and women have never had to stand before an authority, a medical board, or a district magistrate to “prove who we are,” Jothimani pointed out. “But for a transgender person, even existence becomes a process of scrutiny.” The Bill’s demand for a medical examination and certificate from a district magistrate, she added, “fundamentally alter[s] the relationship of the citizen and the state from one of rights to one of permission.”
A host of other opposing politicians also chastised the government over this point. “Why are you asking the transgender community to trust a law that begins by doubting them?” asked Sumathy. June Maliah and Arvind Sawant, a Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and Lok Sabha MP representing Mumbai South, both contended that mandatory medical examinations also constituted a violation of an Indian citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, invoking the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment in KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India that reaffirmed this right. Anand Bhadauriya, a Samajwadi Party MP representing Dhaurahra, alleged that a 2019 standing committee had previously “warned against” a system where one’s identity may be assessed based on “medical or biological eligibility” for trans persons, as this risks framing trans identities “as a disease.”
Several leaders also brought up the potential misuse of the amendments against trans communities. The Trans Bill adds several punishments involving people or children who are “compelled” to adopt trans identities or presentations. This emphasis on coercion, activists and lawyers argue, is built on colonial stereotypes and could be misused to criminalise existing support systems for trans persons. Bhadauriya characterised these clauses as “very worrying” and noted that provisions against such offences already exist within India’s criminal codes.
If a trans child who is being stigmatised seeks help, and “maybe an NGO or a friend wants to help… would you call that kidnapping?” asked Sule.
The most glaring lapse in the Bill, Sule highlighted, was that trans persons were not consulted on the amendments. Cries of “shame” rose through the room. “They are our stakeholders,” she reminded the House. As of 2026, there are no trans MPs in either house of the Indian Parliament.
If the government really wanted to give the trans community a voice, Sule added, they should “get reserved seats for transgenders… Why not do that?”
Sumathy pointed to the emergence of a “larger and deeply troubling pattern” in which the government is seeking to “regulate every sphere of personal life—what we eat, who we love, what we watch, what we write … now it’s gender identity.”
Those in support
The responses from those who supported the Bill appeared to fixate on biological essentialism. Byreddy Shabari, a Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leader and Lok Sabha MP from Nandyal in Andhra Pradesh, was convinced that the transgender community has “misunderstood” a Bill that “gives them identity and justice.” Shabari claimed that since every person had a birth certificate that determined “the sex of us,” trans persons ought to be fine with a certificate that required their medical examination too.
Then Byreddy deployed an analogy. “One of our colleagues, they were telling, ‘Women’s Reservation Bill is coming—if we don’t have system to identity our sex, then we will identify ourselves as women and we will gain from Women’s Reservation Bill,’” she said. Two men sitting next to Shabari beamed in response, thumping the table enthusiastically. Similarly, she said, “cases of fake transgenders,” reported to her by trans persons in her constituency, were increasing as well.
The Bill adopts a “scientific approach” towards gender determination and would give trans persons a very “prestigious life,” claimed Pratap Sarangi, BJP leader and MP from Balasore in Odisha. “Like there is a certificate for SC, ST, and OBC [community members], based on which they are given benefits, there is a medical board for divyangta [disability],” said Alok Kumar Suman, a Janata Dal (United) leader and MP from Gopalgunj in Bihar. “Then how can a systematic process here [in the case of transgender persons] be called wrong?”
In his response, BJP leader and Social Justice Minister Kumar spoke at length but did not address the question raised by many opposition MPs about why the transgender community was not consulted on the amendments. He stuck to the refrain that the Bill had been introduced for the protection of people who “face severe social exclusion due to their biological conditions for no fault of their own or without any choice.”
To bolster his credibility as a trans ally, Kumar recalled an anecdote from the government’s Republic Day celebrations on 26 January this year. About 60 transgender persons from 15 states were “respectfully invited” to the programme, he said. “I invited them to my house in the morning, made entry passes for them to go there, gave them refreshments, and when they were being taken there with respect, they had tears in their eyes. Their eyelids were wet,” he added.
The steps, Kumar said, didn’t end there. “The canteen in the Social Justice and Empowerment building is a trans canteen. It is being run by transgender people.” He suggested that his fellow parliamentarians organise meetings there to “see what healthy food is being cooked by the transgender people.”
Trans activists and politicians respond
Meanwhile, trans persons gathered at a public consultation in South Delhi watched the Bill’s passage unfold on their phones. The outcome was not unexpected, but a stunned silence hung over the gathering. One activist broke into tears. Soon, the crowd stirred. They started discussing what came next.
“There is fear and anxiety; that is one part of it,” Vihaan Vee, a trans man and Ambedkarite activist, told queerbeat. “But there is still Rajya Sabha, this is not the end. We still have the legal framework and space within the Indian Constitution to fight back, and we will.”
Anish Gawande, an openly queer politician and national spokesperson for the NCP–SP, who also attended the meeting, said, “We will push for it to be withdrawn in Rajya Sabha. If not withdrawn, we will push for it to be sent to the standing committees, and if it passes, then it is a long battle through the courtroom that we will fight together.” (According to a report in The Hindu, an Advisory Committee appointed by the Supreme Court as part of its proceedings in the Jane Kaushik vs Union of India case has asked the government to withdraw the Transgender Bill.)
Activists emphasised the need to hold the community together, as the Bill’s hasty progression has overwhelmed many trans and queer persons. Rudrani Rajkumari, a trans activist from Assam, said, “We are doing care work… I think the community should not feel broken. Even in breaking up, we have to put up the front where the community does not feel like they don’t have anywhere to go to and anyone to turn to.”
Some organisations, including Mariwala Health Initiative, Naz Foundation, and Keshav Suri Foundation, posted helpline numbers that community members can call if they are distressed.
Several activists queerbeat interviewed said that they were gearing up for demonstrations across the country. “I am definitely going to [organise] protest[s],” said Kalki.
It’s a “sad situation,” Abhina Aher, a trans activist and NCTP member, said on the passage of the Bill in the Lok Sabha. “This just shows that the work is not done, and we all need to come together to put up the larger fight.”
Visvak, a senior editor with queerbeat, and Sourish Samanta, queerbeat’s multimedia producer, also contributed to the reporting for this story.