India’s newly approved Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 has drawn sharp criticism from leading global human rights organisations, which warn that the law could significantly roll back protections for transgender and gender-diverse people.
The legislation, passed by both houses of Parliament in March and subsequently approved by the President, amends the 2019 law that had been seen as a step forward in recognising transgender rights.
However, critics say the new amendments fundamentally alter that framework—particularly by removing the right to self-identification and introducing mandatory medical verification for legal gender recognition.
UN raises concerns over consultation and privacy
In a public statement on X, UN Human Rights expressed concern over both the process and substance of the law, stating it regretted the “fast passage” of the bill without adequate stakeholder consultation.
The UN warned that the amendments risk “setting back hard-won rights of transgender people” and highlighted that the shift from self-identification to medical verification processes could have far-reaching consequences.
The UN further noted that India has historically been a pioneer in recognising the rights of transgender and gender-diverse people, but cautioned that the new law could undermine privacy rights and deepen marginalisation.
Amnesty calls law a ‘major step backward’
Amnesty International described the law as a “major step backward for human rights,” particularly criticising the removal of the right to self-identify.
According to Amnesty, the amendments require transgender individuals to undergo “a series of official checks” for their identity to be recognised, effectively placing state control over personal identity.
“This regressive law dilutes safeguards and deepens state intrusion into the lives of transgender people,” said Aakar Patel, Chair of Amnesty International India.
The organisation warned that the law contradicts the landmark 2014 Supreme Court judgment in NALSA v. Union of India, which affirmed that gender identity is a matter of personal autonomy and should not be subject to medical or bureaucratic validation.
Amnesty also raised concerns about privacy, noting that provisions requiring medical institutions to share details of gender-affirming procedures with authorities could expose individuals to surveillance, harassment, and discrimination.
Human Rights Watch warns of loss of legal recognition
Human Rights Watch (HRW) similarly described the bill as a “huge setback,” warning that it strips thousands of transgender people of legal recognition and rights.
The organisation highlighted that the amended law narrows the definition of transgender persons, removing recognition for trans men, trans women, and non-binary individuals who rely on self-identification.
It also emphasised that the introduction of mandatory medical certification effectively reverses gains made under Indian law and international human rights standards, which support self-declared identity as the basis for accessing rights and services.
HRW further cautioned that new criminal provisions in the law could expose transgender individuals and their support networks to wrongful prosecution, drawing parallels to colonial-era laws that criminalised gender non-conforming behaviour.
Shift from rights-based framework
Under the original 2019 Act, transgender persons were broadly defined to include trans men, trans women, intersex persons, and genderqueer individuals, with protections against discrimination in employment, education, healthcare, and housing.
The 2026 amendments significantly narrow this definition and introduce a system where identity certification depends on recommendations from a medical board and approval by a district authority.
Critics argue this marks a shift from a rights-based approach grounded in dignity and autonomy to a state-controlled system of classification.
Calls for reconsideration
Across statements, Amnesty, HRW and UN Human Rights have urged the Indian government to reconsider the law, emphasising the need for meaningful consultation with transgender communities.
Amnesty called for the law’s implementation to be halted and reviewed through an inclusive process, while HRW urged authorities to align legislation with constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.
The convergence of criticism from multiple global bodies underscores growing concern that India’s legislative shift could reverse years of progress in recognising the rights and dignity of transgender people.
