Groups urge President not to grant assent to ‘regressive’ Transgender Amendment Bill

What Happened

The All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and the National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR), along with several other civil society organisations, wrote to the President of India urging her not to grant assent to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.
The letter described the Bill as "regressive" and expressed alarm at the "undue and unjustifiable haste" with which it was passed — introduced in Lok Sabha on March 13 and passed by both Houses within approximately 12 days (Lok Sabha on March 24, Rajya Sabha on March 25, 2026).
The groups argue the Bill rolls back hard-won rights established under the original 2019 Act and the Supreme Court's landmark NALSA judgment (2014), particularly the right to self-perceived gender identity.
A key objection is the removal of Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act, which had enshrined the right to self-perceived gender identity — replacing it with a medical-board gatekeeping process that reintroduces "biological" or clinical criteria for identity recognition.
Under Article 111 of the Constitution, the President may withhold assent, return the Bill (if it is not a Money Bill) for reconsideration, or simply delay action — though constitutionally, if Parliament repasses a returned Bill, the President must assent.

Static Topic Bridges

Presidential Assent and Article 111 — Legislative Process

Once a Bill is passed by both Houses of Parliament, it is presented to the President for assent under Article 111 of the Constitution. The President may: (a) give assent, (b) withhold assent, or (c) return the Bill to Parliament for reconsideration (if it is not a Money Bill). If Parliament passes the Bill again (with or without amendments), the President must give assent — there is no absolute veto in the Indian constitutional system.

In practice, presidential withholding of assent is extremely rare. No ordinary Bill has been constitutionally "vetoed" (withheld assent indefinitely) by any President since Independence — the convention is for the President to act on ministerial advice.
Article 200 provides an analogous provision for Governors with respect to State Bills — Governors may reserve Bills for Presidential consideration, which has been the subject of significant litigation (e.g., State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab, 2023, where the Supreme Court held that indefinite delay by a Governor amounts to unconstitutionality).
The Supreme Court's ruling in the Punjab Governors case established that constitutional authorities must act on Bills within a reasonable time — a principle that implicitly constrains indefinite presidential delay as well.
The President can also refer a Bill to the Supreme Court under Article 143 for an advisory opinion on its constitutionality before assenting — though this power has been used only a handful of times in history.

Connection to this news: The civil society letter to the President is a constitutional strategy: urging her to withhold assent or refer the Bill for reconsideration exploits the brief constitutional window before the Bill becomes law. However, given Article 111's framework, the ultimate outcome depends on the President's exercise of discretion within constitutional limits.

NALSA v. Union of India (2014) — The Foundational Transgender Rights Judgment

National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA) was decided by a two-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri on April 15, 2014. It is the most significant judicial pronouncement on transgender rights in India.

The Court recognised transgender persons as a "third gender" — distinct from male and female — and held that gender identity is a matter of self-determination, not biological sex or surgical procedures.
Ratio: "Gender identity...forms the core of one's personal self, based on self-identification, not on surgical or medical procedure." The Court rejected the "biological test" in favour of a "psychological test" for gender determination.
The judgment directed the Centre and State Governments to: recognise trans persons as a third gender in all official documents; extend reservations in education and employment (as socially and educationally backward classes); set up welfare boards; and end discrimination in healthcare and public spaces.
The Court grounded transgender rights in Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 19 (freedom of expression, including expression of gender identity), and 21 (right to life including right to dignity).
NALSA also recognised that Article 21's right to life encompasses the right to dignity, bodily autonomy, and the right not to be subjected to non-consensual medical procedures for gender "correction."

Connection to this news: The groups urging the President to withhold assent argue that the 2026 Amendment Bill directly contradicts the NALSA verdict by removing self-perceived gender identity as the basis for recognition and replacing it with a medical board's recommendation — effectively reintroducing the "biological test" that NALSA had categorically rejected.

Constitutional Validity of Retrospective Legislation

The 2026 Amendment Bill contains a clause stating that the revised (narrower) definition of "transgender person" shall be deemed to have "never included" persons outside the new categories. This retrospective provision effectively invalidates approximately 32,000 identity certificates already issued under the 2019 Act.

Article 20(1) of the Constitution prohibits retrospective penal legislation — no person may be convicted of an offence that was not an offence at the time it was committed, and no penalty may be greater than what was prescribed at the time.
While Article 20(1) specifically addresses criminal law, the Supreme Court in Bakhtawar Trust v. M.D. Narayan (2003) held that retrospective civil legislation that extinguishes vested rights can be unconstitutional if it is manifestly arbitrary or disproportionate.
The retroactive clause in the Trans Bill attempts to extinguish already-issued certificates — rights that were legally vested under the 2019 Act and the NALSA judgment. Courts have held that vested rights cannot be taken away retrospectively without adequate justification.
Privacy considerations also arise: the Bill's new Section 7(1A) requires hospitals to report gender-affirming surgeries to state authorities — raising issues under the right to privacy established in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where the Supreme Court held that informational privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.

Connection to this news: Civil society groups' concerns about the retrospective clause are constitutionally grounded — voiding 32,000 existing certificates through a deemed-never-included provision raises serious questions under both Article 20(1) (for any penal consequences) and the broader constitutional guarantee against arbitrary deprivation of vested rights.

Legislative Process and Speed of Passage — Checks on Parliamentary Procedure

India's parliamentary procedure provides several checks on hasty legislation: Bills may be referred to standing committees, select committees, or joint committees; debates are supposed to ensure adequate scrutiny; and the Rajya Sabha serves as a revising chamber for Lok Sabha-passed legislation.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 was passed without reference to a Parliamentary Standing Committee — a practice that has drawn criticism for bypassing deliberative scrutiny.
The original 2019 Act itself was criticised for being passed without adequate consultation with the transgender community, and a subsequent Parliamentary Standing Committee had recommended significant changes that were not fully incorporated.
Comparison: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2024 was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee before passage, following significant opposition demands. The Transgender Amendment Bill did not receive similar treatment.
The three-reading procedure in each House, combined with possible committee reference, is designed to ensure that legislation affecting fundamental rights receives careful deliberation.

Connection to this news: ALIFA and NAJAR's objection to "unjustifiable haste" is not merely rhetorical — the absence of committee scrutiny means that the constitutional vulnerabilities identified above (retroactive clause, medical gatekeeping, privacy violations) were not subjected to parliamentary committee review before the Bill was passed.

Key Facts & Data

Bill passage: Introduced March 13, 2026 → Lok Sabha passed March 24 → Rajya Sabha passed March 25, 2026 (12-day total).
Key deletion: Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act (right to self-perceived gender identity) removed.
New requirement: District Magistrate issues identity certificate based on recommendation of a designated medical board headed by Chief Medical Officer.
Retrospective clause: New definition "shall not include, nor shall ever have been so included" persons outside listed categories — effectively invalidates ~32,000 existing certificates.
New Section 7(1A): Hospitals must report gender-affirming surgeries to state authorities (privacy concern).
NALSA (2014): SC held gender identity is self-determined, not biologically or medically determined.
Puttaswamy (2017): Informational privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Article 111: President may return Bill (non-Money Bill) to Parliament; Parliament can re-pass it compelling assent.
Petitioning body: All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) + National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR).