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.

Israel has said it killed Alireza Tangsiri, the head of the naval arm of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in a strike tied to escalating tensions in the region.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz stated that Tangsiri was “directly responsible” for actions involving the disruption and blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global energy corridor. He added that several other senior naval officials were also killed in the operation.

There has been no immediate confirmation or response from Iran regarding the claim.

Tangsiri had served as commander of the IRGC Navy since 2018, after previously holding the role of deputy commander for nearly a decade. Known for his hardline stance, he had frequently issued warnings against both Israel and the United States.

In past statements, including remarks made in 2019, Tangsiri had threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if Iran’s oil exports were restricted—an action that could significantly disrupt global energy markets.

He was also among several IRGC figures sanctioned by the US Treasury in 2019 following the downing of an American surveillance drone near the strait.

The reported killing, if confirmed, would mark a significant escalation in the already volatile standoff affecting one of the world’s most critical maritime trade routes.

Ferdinand Marcos has pledged to secure a steady “flow of oil” for the Philippines after declaring a state of national energy emergency in response to escalating global supply disruptions linked to the conflict involving Iran.

In a televised address, Marcos assured citizens that the government is working to procure one million barrels of oil to supplement existing reserves, which currently cover about 45 days of supply. He emphasised that the country would receive multiple deliveries to stabilise fuel availability.

The Philippines—heavily reliant on imports for roughly 98% of its oil, largely from the Gulf—has been hit hard by surging global prices. The crisis has been intensified by the conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, alongside disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global energy shipments.

Under the emergency declaration, the government now has expanded powers to directly procure fuel, regulate distribution, and ensure the steady supply of essential goods such as food and medicine. A special committee has also been established to oversee these efforts. The measures are set to remain in effect for up to one year unless lifted earlier.

Philippine Ambassador to the US, Jose Manuel Romualdez, indicated that Manila is engaging with Washington to explore options for sourcing oil, including potential exemptions that would allow imports from US-sanctioned countries.

The announcement follows sharp increases in petrol and diesel prices, which have more than doubled since late February, placing significant strain on households and businesses.

Labour group Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) criticised the move, describing it as an acknowledgment of government shortcomings in managing the crisis. The group also raised concerns about provisions in the emergency order that could restrict labour actions, including strikes, warning these could limit workers’ ability to protest amid rising living costs.

At the same time, business leaders such as Manuel V. Pangilinan have backed the government’s expanded powers, noting that escalating energy costs are already affecting operations across key sectors.

Transport unions, including Piston, have announced a two-day strike, demanding measures such as fuel tax cuts, price controls, and wage increases. The planned action underscores growing public frustration over the economic impact of the crisis.

Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Sharon Garin said the country may temporarily rely more on coal-fired power plants to offset rising liquefied natural gas costs.