To:
Dr Virendra Kumar,
Hon’ble Minister
Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India
Room No. 201, C‑Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110001, India
Subject: Concern over Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 and related disability issues
Hon’ble Minister,
I write as a disability rights advocate deeply concerned for the welfare of the transgender community. I applaud the government’s historic achievements: from the Supreme Court’s NALSA ruling recognising transgender persons’ rights, to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 and recent welfare schemes such as the National Council for Transgender Persons and the SMILE scheme launched by your Ministry. These have been important steps towards inclusion. However, I am alarmed that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced by your Ministry, would require transgender individuals to obtain identity certificates only after approval by a designated medical board.
This medical‑board‑centred approach is deeply troubling from a human‑rights and disability‑studies perspective. Transgender people already face social stigma; subjecting them to intrusive examinations would reinforce a medical model of identity that depends on “certification” by doctors, instead of respecting the self‑perceived identity that the original Act had affirmed in line with NALSA. In effect, trans persons with disabilities would suffer a double burden: first, to prove their disability, often repeatedly, to access the 5 per cent reservation and other entitlements, and then to prove their gender identity as well. Nothing in disability rights law justifies such additional gates. Courts, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, have repeatedly said that disability should not bar someone from education or employment unless it truly prevents them from performing essential duties; they have emphasised functional assessment and reasonable accommodation over rigid exclusions. By that logic, endless reassessments simply because a person is transgender or disabled violate both dignity and rights.
Real‑world experience from disability certification already shows the dangers of this model. NEET qualifiers with disabilities have been forced to travel across states for repeated assessments, even when they already hold permanent certificates and UDID cards. One visually impaired student, Lakshay Sharma, topped NEET but was told by a hospital board that he had “0 per cent” disability for quota purposes, until he went back for reassessment and finally regained recognition of 40 per cent disability after much effort and public scrutiny. Disability rights activists report that every year, persons with disabilities face unnecessary hassles, conflicting opinions from different boards and avoidable legal fights just to secure what the law already promises them.
Even interim guidance from the Supreme Court directions on NEET, requiring boards to focus on functional capacity and not use the 40 per cent benchmark as a blunt bar, is being ignored in practice. Reports and testimonies show wheelchair users being asked to walk, candidates cleared by one state being rejected in another, and young students being humiliated in the name of “fitness”. Expecting the same medical board system to handle transgender identity certificates will simply reproduce these insensitivities in a new context. As Dr Satendra Singh and many others have warned in the context of NEET, every additional medical or bureaucratic hurdle entrenches stigma, wastes years of people’s lives, and deters capable candidates.
I must emphasise that none of this is to question the government’s intent. Protecting vulnerable persons from exploitation, including trafficking and forced procedures, is a worthy goal; stronger penalties for coercion are understandable. The aim of your Ministry’s welfare initiatives for transgender persons, including SMILE and the National Portal for Transgender Persons, is also commendable. My concern is that we must not confuse identity with a medical condition. Under the disability framework, the rules make it clear that once a disability certificate is issued by a competent authority, it is generally meant to be valid for all purposes, so that people can apply for schemes and benefits without facing constant re‑testing. The 2019 Transgender Persons Act similarly allowed self‑identification via a certificate from a District Magistrate; an administrative process, not a medical examination.
On paper, a uniform national procedure for transgender ID certificates might look like a way to ensure transparency. In practice, requiring all trans persons to go through state hospitals and medical boards risks recreating the very gatekeeping that the old, narrow, binary view of gender imposed on them. It will delay legal recognition of transgender identities and expose people to invasive questioning and examinations. Furthermore, I am worried that the proposed definition of a transgender person is becoming far too narrow. By focusing primarily on specific socio-cultural groups or those who have undergone medical procedures, we are effectively erasing transgender men, non-binary persons, and genderqueer individuals who do not fit a specific transfeminine stereotype. This looks less like broadening recognition and more like stripping it away from many who exist in India’s diversity.
I am also concerned about the introduction of vague offences related to "inducement" or "allurement" regarding how a person dresses or presents their gender. Without clear data or community consultation, such broad language risks arbitrary enforcement against the most vulnerable members of the community who are simply trying to live their lives.
My plea is that the Ministry rethink these provisions. I respectfully urge you to refer the Amendment Bill to a Standing Committee for deeper reconsideration. I request that you build further on the existing Act’s social‑rights framework: ensure that transgender persons can continue to self‑declare identity through a simple, accessible administrative process, and focus State energy on social support, non‑discrimination and access to services, rather than medical confirmation. Where genuine mischief, such as forced gender‑related procedures or trafficking, is a concern, existing criminal law and the stronger offences already proposed in the Amendment can and should be used; ordinary transgender people should not be treated as potential offenders or frauds because of these extreme cases. Inclusive policy should empower identity, not police it.
I hope it reaches your desk and prompts a careful reconsideration in Parliament. Our communities believe in dialogue and respect for evidence; many government documents and surveys already show broad public support for reducing stigma around disability and gender diversity.
Thank you for your attention to these urgent concerns.
Yours faithfully,
Nilesh Singit
https://www.nileshsingit.org/
