कथन

Madam, in the case of sexual abuse, how do we determine it? Unless there is medical scrutiny, anybody can be penalised if someone claims that they have been tortured. So, there is a scientific approach, and that is through medical scrutiny. This is for the betterment of this community, and our hon. Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi ji, has every 24.03.2026 1345 honour, respect, and love for this community and for all vulnerable communities. Therefore, it is for the betterment of their community that this law should be passed unanimously. Given the good intentions of the Government, everybody should come unanimously, without opposing, and support the Bill. I appeal to the Opposition as well. I support the Bill. Thank you. SHRI ARVIND GANPAT SAWANT (MUMBAI SOUTH): Thank you, hon. Madam Chairperson. At the outset, let me state that a transgender person is a human being; you must understand that they are human beings and should not be humiliated. What exactly we are going to do, I do not know. What is the necessity or urgency for the Government to introduce such a Bill and get it passed right now? If you look at the population of India, it is 140 crore. What is the population of transgender persons today? It is hardly 4.8 lakh. Out of that, 37,000 are registered as transgender persons; 3,000 are waiting for registration; and 1,400 are registered for skill development training. This is the situation in the country. I do not understand what the necessity or urgency was for the Government to introduce this Bill and get it passed today itself. Madam, we strongly oppose the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, as it undermines the constitutional rights to equality, self-determination, life, liberty, and dignity. Article 14 of the Constitution provides for equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. 24.03.2026 1346 In National Legal Services Authority versus Union of India case, the hon. Supreme Court of India affirmed that the term “sex” under Article 15 includes gender and gender identity, extending full constitutional protection to transgender persons in India. It further recognised self-determination of gender identity as a part of Article 19 protecting freedom to ‘express one’s chosen gender identity through varied ways and means by way of expression, speech, mannerism, clothing, etc., including one’s right to express one’s gender identity. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes living with autonomy, dignity and self-respect. The ability to determine and express one’s gender is central to this right. Together, Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 affirm that transgender persons are entitled to equality, freedom, self-determination and dignity under the Constitution of India. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 enacted in 2019 is an anti-discrimination and welfare rights legislation. So, this was the very good existing legislation. Now, what are we doing? The proposed definition restricts recognition to select socio-cultural groups and intersex persons. It arbitrarily removes transmen, transmasculine, transwomen who do not belong to the socio-cultural group, gender queer and gender diverse persons from the definition. This is even more important. There is an arbitrary erasure of some categories, and there is no constitutional basis to distinguish between them. All these categories are constitutionally protected categories under the umbrella term ‘transgender’ persons. Failing to account for this diversity not only violates constitutional safeguards but also risks exclusion 24.03.2026 1347 and marginalisation, including indigenous identities. Now, I come to violation of the Constitutional Right to self-determination. The proposed amendment arbitrarily and unconstitutionally deletes Section 4 (2) of the 2019 Act, which guarantees the right to self-perceived identity. The erasure of self-identification is a systematic denial of personhood, dignity and decisional autonomy. It effectively criminalises living with oneself, denying the right to live as one’s true self and undermines Articles 14,15,19 and 21 of the Constitution. How are they doing this criminalisation? The proposed insertion of Section 18(g) which criminalises alluring or forcing someone to present as transgender is deeply concerning. By introducing punitive measures within an anti- discrimination and welfare legislation, the Bill risks criminalising transgender persons and their support structure. Such provisions are sweeping. He has rightly pointed out that they are asked to strip their clothes at police stations. Such provisions are sweeping, vague and prone to misuse making them both contradictory and counterproductive to the original legislative intent to protect rights of transgender persons. The provision echoes colonial-era suspicion and control of marginalised communities, reminiscent of the Criminal Tribes Act (Amended) 1897, which criminalised the entire community. Such rhetoric has been rejected by the High Court of Telangana in striking down the Telangana Eunuch Act, 1919, recognising its incompatibility with fundamental rights. The Bill proposed the establishment of a medical board to screen transgender persons, whose recommendation may determine whether the 24.03.2026 1348 District Magistrate may issue a certificate of identity, with further discretion to seek additional medical opinion from a medical expert. The Bill also proposes the mandatory furnishing of details by medical institutions of individuals who have undergone gender-affirming care. These provisions are highly invasive and constitute a clear violation of the right to privacy and decisional autonomy, as affirmed by the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in K. S. Puttaswamy vs. Union Of India, which recognises bodily integrity and decisional autonomy as constitutionally protected. They have not consulted any stakeholders. That is the worst part of it. I came across so many genuine NGOs. There were some eunuchs. We call them in Maharashtra as hijras. They came to my office and told us that they have not been consulted at all. They are the stakeholders. They should have been consulted while amending this rule. The proposed amendment jeopardises thousands of transgender persons who have already exercised their Constitutional right to legal recognition under the 2019 Act. The proposed clause in Section 18(g) is misconceived and misplaced, which risks exposing transgender persons and those who support them, their families and friends, healthcare providers and doctors. Instead of providing protection, the proposed Bill introduces fear and uncertainty within homes and support structures. As far as the invasive Medical Gatekeeping of Gender Identities is concerned, it is imperative to note that the Standing Committee on the Transgender Bill, 2019, had cautioned against such a mechanism, observing 24.03.2026 1349 that the presence of medical professionals on a screening panel creates a serious risk that recognition of a person's identity may be subject to assessment of medical, psychological and biological 'eligibility'. Such an approach would risk pathologizing trans identities, and violate the right of transgender persons under the Supreme Court judgement and international human rights law and standard to have their self-identified gender recognized. While certain provisions of the 2019 Act, including Sections 4 to 7 and Section 18 are currently under Constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court, the transgender community has never expressed any concerns with the definition under the 2019 Act. Recent landmark cases such as Jane Kaushik versus Union of India challenge discrimination and non-implementation of the Act but not the definition itself. The Bill introduces exclusion, violation of Constitutional rights without addressing any genuine legal and practical concerns faced by the community. I, therefore, respectfully request the Government to let the good sense prevail. Kindly withdraw the Bill. There is no hurry as such. I have just quoted the total number of transgenders. I do not know what your urgency is. Send it to the Standing Committee. We are here to support it. Whatever the lacunae we have expressed here, kindly get it corrected, and bring that Bill. We will support that Bill, Sir. Thank you. __________ 24.03.2026 1350 17.46 hrs BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16th Report

वक्ता Pratap Chandra Sarangi

कब कहा 2026-03-24T00:00:00.000Z

किस वाद-विवाद में Ruling regarding Notices of Adjournment Motion