A Supreme Court-appointed panel, led by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon, has urged the Centre to withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, and called for broad community consultation before further changes.
An Advisory Committee appointed by the Supreme Court and led by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon has passed a resolution urging the Government of India to withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.
The panel said the proposed removal of the right to self-identify gender conflicted with the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in NALSA v Union of India.
Earlier, On March 25, 2026, Chairperson Justice Menon wrote to Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar to inform him of the committee’s decision. She said the amendment came as a “great shock” and would amount to a “tremendous setback” to efforts to mainstream transgender communities.
Introduced by Minister Virendra Kumar on March 13, the Bill seeks to eliminate the provision recognising transgender people’s “right to a self-perceived gender identity,” narrows the legal definition of a transgender person, and would require approval from a medical board to obtain a transgender certificate and identity card.
The Lok Sabha passed the Bill by voice vote on Tuesday (March 24, 2026), after an Opposition-led walkout protesting the measure.
Since the Bill was introduced, transgender communities nationwide have expressed strong opposition. Rights organisations, community leaders, feminist collectives, lawyers, mental health professionals and human rights advocates have criticised the proposed changes to the 2019 law.
The Bill was scheduled for consideration and passage in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday (March 25).
Ahead of the Lok Sabha vote, the Supreme Court-established Advisory Committee met on March 20 and adopted a resolution finding that several provisions of the Bill contravened the NALSA judgment. The committee asked the Social Justice Minister to withdraw the Bill and recommended broad-based community consultation before any further amendments to the 2019 Act.
The March 20 meeting called at the request of one member to discuss the proposed amendment was attended by seven of the eight court-appointed members. None of the seven Union government secretaries, who serve as ex officio members, were present. The Joint Secretary from the Social Justice Ministry, designated as the committee convener, also did not attend.
Under Justice Menon’s chairmanship, the committee observed that the Bill’s proposed definition of a transgender person excluded individuals who do not identify with the sex assigned at birth; that mandatory reporting by medical institutions of gender-affirming care to district authorities would be a “complete” violation of privacy; and that some acts being criminalised in the amendments are already covered by existing laws such as the BNSS and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The Supreme Court had formed this committee while hearing the case of Delhi-based transwoman Jane Kaushik, who experienced workplace discrimination and faced barriers applying for teaching positions.
In an October order awarding Ms. Kaushik compensation, the Court remarked,
“Having gone through the statutory framework, we are disheartened to note that there are several provisions in both the 2019 Act and the 2020 Rules respectively which remain as mere aspirations on paper despite the same being couched in a mandatory language.”
The Court tasked the committee, led by Justice Menon and including representatives of seven Union ministries, with drafting “a practical policy draft and/or a report for the consideration of the Union of India, so as to further the transgender rights discourse and give effect to the beneficial provisions of the 2019 Act.”
Click Here to Read More Reports On Transgender Rights