Members of Kolkata’s queer community and legal experts have voiced strong opposition to the proposed Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, arguing that it could restrict the right to self-identification for transgender individuals. The bill, introduced in Parliament by Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Virendra Kumar, has sparked criticism for narrowing the definition of transgender identity and imposing additional procedural requirements for legal recognition.

Activists contend that the amendment contradicts the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA), which upheld every citizen’s right to self-identify their gender without mandatory medical intervention. They question why transgender individuals alone would have to provide evidence of their gender identity, while the genders “male” and “female” face no such verification process.

Pawan Dhall, a prominent queer writer and activist who co-founded Kolkata’s annual LGBTQ Pride Walk, emphasized that the bill introduces a “medical screening” process for legal recognition of transgender identity. Dhall called the requirement unethical and outdated, arguing that it undermines personal autonomy and contradicts the Supreme Court’s clear directives on self-identification. He urged that the bill be referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee for re-evaluation.

Also Read: World Voices Alarm Over Escalation After US-Israel Attacks on Iran

Senior advocate Kaushik Gupta of the Calcutta High Court expressed similar concerns. He highlighted that the bill’s revised definition of “transgender” largely excludes trans-men—individuals assigned female at birth who identify as male—and makes them vulnerable. Gupta described the proposed screening process as discriminatory, noting that the government had not conducted nationwide consultations with transgender groups before drafting the amendment.

Social media influencer and queer rights activist Debika Barua also questioned the bill’s discriminatory implications. “Do men or women have to provide proof of their gender? Why should transgender people be singled out for medical verification?” she asked, adding that many in rural areas cannot afford surgical procedures required under the bill and that physical transformation is not feasible for everyone.

Transgender rights activist Dr. Ranjita Sinha warned that the amendment could fundamentally weaken constitutional protections and exclude large sections of gender-diverse individuals from recognition and legal safeguards. “Gender identity is a deeply personal and constitutional matter of dignity and self-determination,” Sinha said, urging that legislative reforms should expand protections rather than narrow them.

Also Read: #JustIn: Israel Strikes Hezbollah, Killing Four Fighters in Southern Lebanon