In a significant development, a coalition of lawyers, feminists, and social activists has formally appealed to the President of India, Smt. Draupadi Murmu, to withhold assent from the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. The appeal, submitted by the All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and the National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR), urges the President to exercise her powers under Article 111 of the Constitution to return the Bill to Parliament for reconsideration.
The Bill, which was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 24 and the Rajya Sabha on March 25, has been met with fierce opposition from civil society, who allege that it was pushed through Parliament with “undue and unjustifiable haste,” disregarding established procedures, judicial precedents, and the concerns of the transgender community itself.
Procedural Infirmities and Undue Haste
In a detailed letter to the President, the groups—representing pan-India platforms associated with the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM)—have outlined a series of procedural violations that marked the Bill’s passage.
The letter notes that the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 13 through a supplementary list of business, giving Members of Parliament (MPs) insufficient time to study it. This, the petitioners argue, violates the spirit of the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014, as the government undertook no prior public or stakeholder consultation.
The opposition was vocal on the floor of both houses. Several MPs requested that the Bill be referred to a Standing or Select Committee for proper scrutiny. The government, however, refused these demands without providing a cogent reason. The petitioners also pointed to a breach of parliamentary convention, where the Finance Minister’s reply to the debate on the Finance Bill was postponed to suddenly take up the transgender amendment Bill.
Furthermore, the letter alleges that Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Kiren Rijiju, “misled the House” by claiming an extensive debate had taken place, when the government had not conducted any consultations. The groups also highlighted that the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP), a statutory body, was not consulted before the amendments were brought in. A last-minute invitation to NCTP members on March 22 was not followed by a meeting with the Minister, reportedly leading to multiple resignations from the Council in protest.
Constitutional Violations and Regression of Rights
The core of the appeal rests on the argument that the amendments fundamentally violate the constitutional rights of transgender persons, directly contradicting landmark Supreme Court judgments.
The petitioners emphasize that the Bill omits Section 4(2) of the Principal Act of 2019, which guaranteed every person the right to self-perceived gender identity. They argue that this provision was a legislative recognition of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in NALSA v. Union of India (2014), which held that the right to self-identify one's gender is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Instead, the new Bill introduces a "medical board" whose recommendation the District Magistrate must examine before issuing a certificate of identity. The groups argue that this re-introduces a requirement for medical evaluation, a practice the Supreme Court had expressly rejected in the NALSA judgment. This, they contend, also violates the right to bodily integrity and privacy enshrined under Article 21, as established in the Puttaswamy judgment.
The letter also warns that new penal provisions under the substituted Section 18 will have a chilling effect. The provision criminalizes compelling any person to "outwardly present a transgender identity." When read alongside a narrowed definition of "transgender person," the groups fear these clauses could be used to treat self-determined transgender identity as an outcome of "coercion" or "deception."
Finally, the petitioners note that the Bill severely violates a recent Supreme Court judgment in Jane Kaushik vs. Union of India (October 2025). They reveal that Justice (Retd.) Asha Menon, Chairperson of an Advisory Committee appointed by the Court in that case, had written an urgent letter to the government on March 25, 2026, urging it to withdraw the Bill—a plea the government ignored as it pushed the Bill through Parliament.
Appeal to the President
The letter, signed by nearly 150 concerned citizens including senior advocates like Gayatri Singh, activists like Grace Banu, and academics like J. Devika, concludes with a strong appeal to the President.
Invoking Article 111 of the Constitution, which allows the President to return a Bill (other than a Money Bill) for reconsideration by Parliament, the groups have requested Smt. Murmu to withhold her assent. They have urged her to send the Bill back with a recommendation that it be referred to a Standing Committee or a Joint Parliamentary Committee for thorough scrutiny and extensive consultations with the transgender, intersex, and non-binary communities.
“We are hopeful that you will stand with the citizens of India and exercise your constitutional powers and discharge your constitutional responsibility in advancing the rights of one of the most marginalized communities of India,” the letter concludes.
As the Bill now awaits the President's assent, the appeal places the onus on the highest constitutional office to decide on the fate of legislation that has sharply divided the government and the rights-based civil society.
Comments