India passes transgender rights amendment, prompting concerns over compliance with Supreme Court precedent

President Droupadi Murmu on Tuesday assented to the Transgender Individuals (Safety of Rights) Modification Invoice, 2026, a measure that Amnesty Worldwide says restricts the power of transgender and gender-diverse people to self-identify. Aakar Patel, chair of Amnesty Worldwide India’s board, criticized the legislation, stating: “This regressive legislation dilutes safeguards and deepens state intrusion into the lives of transgender folks.”

The Transgender Individuals (Safety of Rights) Modification Invoice, 2026, was handed by voice vote in each homes of Parliament on March 25, finishing its legislative approval course of. Opposition leaders raised considerations over the expedited course of and urged that the invoice be referred to a standing committee for broader session with stakeholders. Beneath the amended framework, transgender people are required to bear a sequence of official verification procedures earlier than their gender identification might be legally acknowledged by authorities. 

The modification introduces a narrower definition of “transgender,” limiting recognition to specified socio-cultural classes and organic variations. It additionally removes a separate definition of intersex individuals, grouping them inside the broader transgender class. Moreover, the legislation establishes felony penalties for “compelling,” “forcing” or “alluring” an individual or baby to current as transgender, with punishments extending as much as life imprisonment.

Authorized observers observe that the modification departs from ideas articulated by the Supreme Courtroom in NALSA v. Union of India of 2014, through which the Courtroom acknowledged gender identification as a matter of private autonomy and affirmed the precise to self-identification with out obligatory medical intervention.  The brand new framework replaces the Courtroom’s recognition of self-identification with a system requiring certification by a medical board and subsequent recognition by a District Justice of the Peace, elevating considerations amongst critics about elevated state oversight and potential inconsistencies with constitutional protections and worldwide human rights requirements.

The laws was enacted regardless of objections from a Supreme Courtroom-appointed skilled committee on transgender rights, which had really useful withdrawing the invoice and conducting additional consultations with affected communities. The committee explicitly requested the federal government to withdraw the invoice and have interaction in significant session with transgender communities. Nevertheless, the federal government proceeded with the laws. 

In the meantime, the Rajasthan Excessive Courtroom cautioned that legislative adjustments can’t dilute constitutional ensures, notably these acknowledged in prior Supreme Courtroom rulings, signaling the potential for future authorized challenges to the modification.