NEW DELHI: Even as the opposition demanded that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill 2026 be referred to a parliamentary standing committee for wider consultations, Lok Sabha passed it by a voice vote, with govt responding to allegations of “exclusion” by saying the changes were aimed at ensuring that the protection and benefits under the law reach genuine transgender persons.The bill is listed to be taken up by Rajya Sabha on Wednesday. The opposition slammed govt for taking away the right to self-determination of gender identity that was upheld by Supreme Court in its landmark NALSA judgment. Congress MPs S Jothimani set off the debate from Opposition’s side and along with Supriya Sule (NCP-SP), Anand Bhadauria (Samajwadi Party), T. Sumathy (DMK), June Maliah (TMC), Arvind Ganpat Sawant (Shiv Sena UBT), Abhay Kumar Sinha (RJD) and other Congress MPs opposed the legislation.The MPs contended that the bill was introduced without adequate consultations with the transgender community and it narrows the definition by excluding self-perceived identities and introduces a medical board, which would further their exclusion and violate the rights of TG persons. MPs from TDP, (BJP), JD(U) and Shiv Sena supported the bill, building on the govt’s arguments. Replying to a discussion on the bill, social justice and empowerment minister Virendra Kumar said that the 2019 law was brought to provide protection and welfare to transgender persons, and that the amendment bill aims to focus on those who face severe social boycott due to their biological condition.In the statement and objects of the bill, it is stated, “The purpose of the Act was to protect a specified class of persons socially and culturally known as transgender people who face societal discrimination of an extreme and oppressive nature.” It adds, “The purpose was and is not to protect each and every class of persons with various gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities.“In a major departure from the existing law, the bill proposes to omit the clause that allowed “self-perceived gender identity” to be the basis for self-determination and identification for grant of transgender certificate by the district magistrate.The provision of a medical board headed by chief medical officer has been introduced in the bill, and going forward, the district magistrate will issue a certificate of transgender identity after examining the recommendation of the medical board, cited as “authority”, to be constituted by central or state govts. The minister defended stricter penal provisions in the bill, stating that they are necessary to prevent exploitation, coercion and harm, especially in cases involving children.