New India Transgender Rights Bill Sparks Protests Over Self-Identification Changes

India’s parliament has passed a controversial bill amending transgender rights legislation, triggering protests from opposition parties and LGBTQ advocates who say it undermines the right to self-identify.

The bill, which updates the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, now awaits approval from the president before becoming law.

Government officials argue the changes will improve access to welfare programmes and strengthen protections against exploitation and trafficking. However, critics warn the new framework could exclude large sections of the transgender, non-binary, and gender-fluid community.

A key shift in the legislation concerns how transgender identity is defined. While a landmark 2014 ruling by the Supreme Court of India recognised transgender people as a “third gender” and affirmed their right to self-identify, the new bill moves away from that principle.

Instead, it introduces a narrower definition based on biological or physical characteristics. It also requires certification from medical boards and local authorities, particularly for individuals undergoing gender-affirming procedures.

The government maintains that the current definition is too broad, making it difficult to ensure that welfare benefits—such as healthcare support and job reservations—reach the most marginalised individuals. Officials say the revised criteria are designed to protect those facing “extreme and oppressive” discrimination.

Activists, however, argue the changes could fundamentally reshape legal recognition in a restrictive way. They say many transgender people—especially those who rely on self-identification rather than medical or legal certification—risk being excluded from official recognition and support systems.

India is estimated to have around two million transgender people, though advocacy groups believe the actual number is higher. Despite existing legal protections, many continue to face discrimination and barriers to education, healthcare, and employment.

The passage of the bill has intensified debate over how best to balance administrative clarity with individual rights, with critics urging authorities to reconsider provisions they say could reverse progress made over the past decade.