The panel passed a resolution saying the provisions of the Bill were against the NALSA judgement, and requested the Social Justice Minister to withdraw the Bill
| Photo Credit: S. Subramanium
A Supreme Court-constituted Advisory Committee headed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon has sent a resolution to the Government of India, requesting that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, be withdrawn as the proposal to “deny self-identification” of gender went against the decision of the Supreme Court in the 2014 NALSA v Union of India verdict.
The Bill, introduced by Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar on March 13, proposes to remove a section that recognised transgender people’s “right to a self-perceived gender identity”, redefine a transgender person, and introduce the requirement of a medical board’s nod to acquire a transgender certificate and identity card. The Bill was passed by voice vote in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday (March 24, 2026), amidst an Opposition-led walkout over their objections to the Bill.
Since the Bill’s introduction, transgender communities across the country have reacted sharply, with rights groups, community leaders, and collectives of feminist groups, lawyers, mental health professionals and human rights advocates coming out against the amendments being proposed to the 2019 law.
The Bill is listed for consideration and passing in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday (March 25).
Advisory Committee resolution
Days before the Lok Sabha passed the Bill, an Advisory Committee constituted by the Supreme Court in October 2025 held a meeting on March 20, during which the panel passed a resolution saying the provisions of the Bill were against the NALSA judgement, and requested the Social Justice Minister to withdraw the Bill. The Committee also called for widespread community consultation before any further amendments are brought to the 2019 law.
This Advisory Committee met on March 20 at the request of one of the Members, who had specifically raised the need to discuss the amendment to the Bill. The meeting was attended by seven of the eight members appointed by the court. Further, neither of the seven Secretaries to the Union government, appointed as ex officio members to this panel by the Court, attended the meeting, The Hindu has learnt. The Joint Secretary of the Social Justice Ministry, who is to serve as the Committee’s Convener, also did not attend.
During the meeting chaired by Justice Menon, the Committee noted that the proposed definition of a transgender person excluded people who do not identify with the sex assigned to them at birth, provisions compelling medical institutions to report gender-affirming care to district authorities were a “complete” violation of privacy, and observed that certain acts that had been criminalised in the proposed amendments are already addressed by other laws like the BNSS and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The Supreme Court constituted this Committee while it was hearing the case of Delhi-based transwoman Jane Kaushik, who had faced discrimination at the workplace and in hiring from schools she was applying to be a teacher at. While awarding Ms. Kaushik compensation, the Supreme Court in an October order also noted, “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 had further constituted the committee headed by Justice Menon and representatives of the Seven Union Ministries to formulate “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”.
Published – March 25, 2026 11:08 am IST
