Joint Statement: Revoke the India Transgender Amendment Act 2026

May 1

Call for revocation of the India Transgender Amendment Act 2026

ILGA Asia and partner organizations call on the Government of India to revoke the India Transgender Amendment Act 2026 and uphold the rights, dignity, autonomy, and safety of transgender, intersex, and gender-diverse communities.

We are alarmed by the adoption of the Transgender Amendment Act 2026 into law by the Indian government on 30 March 2026. The amendment violates international human rights standards and fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian constitution.

We are further concerned that provisions of this law, such as Section 18, are leading to increased police harassment of transgender persons. Assumptions of criminal liability attached to vague notions like “enticing” someone into “adopting” transgender identities risks the persecution of any form of counseling, peer support, or awareness work for transgender individuals, especially youth. Such broad and unclear interpretations create fear among community members and those working to provide essential support services. Media narratives that misrepresent historically rooted socio-cultural transgender identities and practices, along with consistent misgendering, further incite stigma and hatred against transgender communities in India. The use of such claims to justify action under loosely defined grounds of “enticement” amounts to serious legal overreach. It disproportionately impacts transgender persons who already face multiple and intersecting marginalisations based on caste, religion, socio-economic status, and gender identity.

We call upon the Indian government to revoke the amendments made to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, cease all forms of scrutiny and encroachment into the identity, bodily integrity, and equal dignity of transgender and gender diverse individuals and communities, and call for the release of anyone being prosecuted under this Act.

We raise the following key concerns regarding the legislation:

Criminalisation of support systems for trans and gender diverse individuals

There is serious concern that the amendment under Section 18, which criminalises anyone who “compels or entices” a person into adopting a transgender identity, may be misused to further criminalise transgender communities and their support systems. The ambiguous wording creates a risk that essential forms of support, such as counselling, peer support, community engagement, and awareness efforts by NGOs, friends, and medical professionals, could be wrongly and unjustifiably criminalised, leading to a climate of fear and isolation.

This concern becomes even more significant in light of the Supreme Court’s observations in Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala, where the Court recognised the need to protect individuals’ autonomy and ensure that their choices regarding identity and relationships are free from coercion or undue influence. The Court also expressed apprehension about practices like counselling being used to override a person’s will or identity. There is a real risk that Section 18 could be used in ways that contradict these principles, by targeting supportive interventions instead of safeguarding autonomy, thereby further marginalising transgender persons and weakening the very support structures that enable them to exercise their rights.

LGBTIQ youths who seek refuge and guidance from support groups outside of biological family structures that may subject them to violence are left vulnerable under this Act, not only risking refoulement to their homes but criminal prosecution of groups and individuals they could seek support from. Furthermore, many sociocultural identities that are recognised under the transgender umbrella follow a guru-chela (master-disciple) system and live communal lives and their practices and cultures are threatened under this provision.

Conflation of gender identity and sex characteristics

The previous definition of transgender persons that recognises them as “a person whose gender does not match with the gender assigned to that person at birth” should be retained. There should be a clear distinction between varied sex characteristics and gender identity, specific protections for intersex persons, and protections for sociocultural identities like kinner, hijra, aravani, and jogta, and their rights should be articulated in a way that is not undermined by narratives of or provisions for protecting the rights of transgender persons. This invisibilises the specific contexts and needs of different groups and further marginalises their struggles.

Removal of right to self-perceived identity

The removal of the right to self-perceived identity for transgender persons in India is a regression from constitutional and human rights standards and directly contradicts the judgment of the Supreme Court in NALSA v. Union of India. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21 guarantees personal liberty. The self-determination of gender is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression protected under the Constitution and affirmed by the Court. This position is further strengthened by the Supreme Court’s broad recognition of the fundamental right to privacy in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which held that privacy includes decisional autonomy, bodily integrity, and the right to define one’s identity. The denial of self-perceived gender identity thus violates the core constitutional guarantees of dignity, autonomy, and privacy, and undermines the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Pathologisation of transgender identity and bodies

The Act uses dehumanising language to describe transgender bodies including the use of terms like “mutilation”, “emasculation”, “castration”, and “amputation”. Furthermore, the criminalisation of any medical or surgical intervention on bodies with the intent to “compel” them to adopt transgender identities creates further barriers to access gender-affirming healthcare as medical professionals and their practices are put at risk for treating and caring for transgender patients. Fear of criminalisation has led to denial of medicine including hormone supplements for transgender individuals, depriving them of life-saving medication.

The administrative process for recognition of trans identity puts the onus on the individual to go through an invasive medical verification process, which may not be accessible or desirable for every transgender person or other gender minority. This creates the risk of surgical gatekeeping, biomedical surveillance into trans bodies, and increased bureaucratic and administrative barriers for transgender people.

A Narrow and Arbitrary Definition of “Transgender”

By grounding trans identification in a state-controlled process, the amendment reinforces existing systems of discrimination that are already shaped by caste, class, religion, and region. It recognises only four socio-cultural trans communities namely kinner, hijra, aravani, and jogta.

Many other socio-cultural trans communities in India include, but are not limited to, Nupi Manbi, Nupa Manba, Lapi and Mumbal/Mumbar, Thirunangai, Thirunambi, and Khwaja Sira, which are communities that understand and express gender through cultural roles, names, and practices that exist outside the legal and urban language the bill uses. Forcing everyone into socio-cultural identities based on an arbitrary caste framework makes entire groups of people invisible within the law, stripping away cultural specificities that communities have built and maintained in their own contexts.

This Act is also in contravention of India’s international human rights and constitutional obligations. It violates core principles of equality, non-discrimination, dignity, and personal autonomy guaranteed under instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 1, 2, and 7), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 17, 19, and 26 on privacy, expression, and equality), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 2 on non-discrimination). It also goes against the principles articulated in the Yogyakarta Principles, which affirm the right to recognition before the law, self-defined gender identity, and freedom from discrimination and violence. The attack on transgender rights impacts the most marginalised communities in intersectional ways; those who have multiple marginalised identities inter alia on the basis of caste, religion, class, and geographic location are further disenfranchised and face criminalisation under this Act.

We, the undersigned, strongly urge the Government of India to repeal this discriminatory Act, reestablish the legal protections afforded under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, stop all criminal investigations and prosecutions under Section 18, and take an inclusive and human rights-based approach towards protecting transgender, intersex, and persons with socioculturally rooted gender/sexual identities and expressions.

List of Organisations calling to revoke the India Transgender Amendment Act 2026