1 month ago
1
A Supreme Court-constituted Advisory Committee headed by erstwhile Delhi High Court justice Justice Asha Menon has sent a solution to the Government of India, requesting that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, beryllium withdrawn arsenic the connection to “deny self-identification” of sex went against the determination of the Supreme Court successful the 2014 NALSA v Union of India verdict.
The Bill, introduced by Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar connected March 13, proposes to region a conception that recognised transgender people’s “right to a self-perceived sex identity”, redefine a transgender person, and present the request of a aesculapian board’s motion to get a transgender certificate and individuality card. The Bill was passed by dependable ballot successful the Lok Sabha connected Tuesday (March 24, 2026), amidst an Opposition-led walkout implicit their objections to the Bill.
Since the Bill’s introduction, transgender communities crossed the state person reacted sharply, with rights groups, assemblage leaders, and collectives of feminist groups, lawyers, intelligence wellness professionals and quality rights advocates coming retired against the amendments being projected to the 2019 law.
The Bill is listed for information and passing successful the Rajya Sabha connected Wednesday (March 25).
Advisory Committee resolution
Days earlier the Lok Sabha passed the Bill, an Advisory Committee constituted by the Supreme Court successful October 2025 held a gathering connected March 20, during which the sheet passed a solution saying the provisions of the Bill were against the NALSA judgement, and requested the Social Justice Minister to retreat the Bill. The Committee besides called for wide assemblage consultation earlier immoderate further amendments are brought to the 2019 law.
This Advisory Committee met connected March 20 astatine the petition of 1 of the Members, who had specifically raised the request to sermon the amendment to the Bill. The gathering was attended by 7 of the 8 members appointed by the court. Further, neither of the 7 Secretaries to the Union government, appointed arsenic ex officio members to this sheet by the Court, attended the meeting, The Hindu has learnt. The Joint Secretary of the Social Justice Ministry, who is to service arsenic the Committee's Convener, besides did not attend.
During the gathering chaired by Justice Menon, the Committee noted that the projected explanation of a transgender idiosyncratic excluded radical who bash not place with the enactment assigned to them astatine birth, provisions compelling aesculapian institutions to study gender-affirming attraction to territory authorities were a “complete” usurpation of privacy, and observed that definite acts that had been criminalised successful the projected amendments are already addressed by different laws similar the BNSS and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The Supreme Court constituted this Committee portion it was proceeding the lawsuit of Delhi-based transwoman Jane Kaushik, who had faced favoritism astatine the workplace and successful hiring from schools she was applying to beryllium a teacher at. While awarding Ms. Kaushik compensation, the Supreme Court successful an October bid besides noted, “Having gone done the statutory framework, we are disheartened to enactment that determination are respective provisions successful some the 2019 Act and the 2020 Rules respectively which stay arsenic specified aspirations connected insubstantial contempt the aforesaid being couched successful a mandatory language.”
The tribunal had further constituted the committee headed by Justice Menon and representatives of the Seven Union Ministries to formulate “a applicable argumentation draught and/or a study for the information of the Union of India, truthful arsenic to further the transgender rights sermon and springiness effect to the beneficial provisions of the 2019 Act”.
