Across party lines, opposition Members of Parliament repeatedly demanded that the Bill be referred to a Standing or Select Committee to enable wider consultation with stakeholders, including transgender persons, legal experts, and civil society organisations. These demands were rejected without substantive reasoning. Civil society groups later highlighted that the Bill had been introduced through a supplementary list of business, limiting the time available for parliamentary scrutiny. In their joint letter to the President, the All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and the National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR) characterised the process as one marked by “undue and unjustifiable haste,” arguing that the government had disregarded both parliamentary conventions and the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014.

The Bill now awaits assent from President Droupadi Murmu, even as legal scholars, activists, and citizens urge her to exercise her powers under Article 111 of the Constitution to return the Bill for reconsideration.

The Core Legal Shift: From self-identification to state certification

At the heart of the amendment lies a fundamental transformation in how Indian law conceptualises gender identity. The Transgender Persons Act, 2019 was built upon the constitutional foundation laid down in NALSA v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court recognised the right to self-identify one’s gender as intrinsic to dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty. The judgment made it clear that gender identity is not contingent on medical procedures or external validation, but rather on an individual’s deeply felt sense of self.

The 2026 amendment departs sharply from this framework. By removing the provision for “self-perceived gender identity,” it replaces a rights-based approach with a certification regime. Under this system, individuals seeking recognition as transgender must undergo evaluation by a designated medical board. The recommendation of this board is then examined by a District Magistrate, who ultimately decides whether to issue a certificate of identity.

While the government has defended this mechanism as necessary for administrative clarity and targeted delivery of welfare benefits, according to Hindustan Times, many argue that it effectively places the State in the position of validating identity. This shift is not merely procedural—it alters the philosophical basis of the law, moving from recognition to regulation. The concern is that identity, which the Supreme Court treated as an aspect of personal autonomy, is now being reframed as something that must be verified, measured, and approved.

Redefining Transgender Identity: Inclusion, exclusion, and legal erasure

The amendment also introduces a narrower definition of “transgender person,” with significant implications for who is recognised under the law. It includes individuals with intersex variations or congenital differences in sex characteristics, as well as those belonging to certain recognised socio-cultural communities such as hijras, kinnars, aravanis, and jogtas. However, it explicitly excludes individuals whose identities are based solely on self-identification.

This definitional shift has been widely criticised as exclusionary. Activists and scholars argue that it risks erasing large sections of the transgender community, including trans men, non-binary individuals, and those who do not belong to traditional community structures. Media reports have noted that the amendment effectively restricts recognition to those who can either demonstrate biological markers or align with specific socio-cultural identities, as reported in Indian Express.

The implications are not merely symbolic. Legal recognition is the gateway to accessing rights, welfare schemes, and protections. By narrowing the definition, the law may render many individuals ineligible for benefits they were previously entitled to under the 2019 framework. This has led to fears that the amendment could create a hierarchy within the transgender community, privileging certain identities while excluding others.

Penal provisions and the question of criminalisation

Another significant aspect of the amendment is the introduction of new penal provisions, including offences related to “inducing” or “compelling” someone to adopt a transgender identity. The government has justified these provisions as necessary safeguards, particularly to protect minors from coercion and exploitation. It has also emphasised that the law introduces graded punishments to reflect the seriousness of offences.

However, the language of these provisions is vague and potentially overbroad, as such clauses may inadvertently criminalise support systems that have historically sustained transgender communities, including families, chosen kinship networks, and civil society organisations. There is concern that by framing transgender identity in the context of inducement or coercion, the law risks reinforcing the idea that such identities are not self-originating but externally imposed.

This concern is particularly acute in a social context where transgender individuals often rely on informal networks for survival and support. The fear is that these networks could come under legal scrutiny, further marginalising an already vulnerable community.

Government’s Position: Welfare, clarity, and control

Union Minister Virendra Kumar has consistently defended the Bill as a necessary step toward ensuring justice and protection for transgender persons. According to the government, the amendments are intended to ensure that welfare benefits reach those who genuinely need them, and that the absence of clear criteria does not lead to misuse. The emphasis on biological and verifiable markers is presented as a way to bring administrative clarity to the system.

Several ruling party MPs echoed this reasoning during parliamentary debates, raising concerns about the possibility of individuals falsely claiming transgender identity to access benefits, as reported by Hindustan Times. The government has also pointed to its broader initiatives—such as awareness programmes, job fairs, and helplines—as evidence of its commitment to the welfare of transgender persons.

Yet, these arguments fail to address the central constitutional issue: whether the State can condition recognition of identity on verification processes that undermine autonomy and dignity.

Opposition and Constitutional Challenge: Rights, dignity, and judicial precedent

The parliamentary debate on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 was marked by an unusually unified and forceful response from opposition parties, who framed their objections not merely in political terms but as a matter of constitutional principle. Across party lines—including the Congress, DMK, AITC, SP, RJD, AAP, CPI(M), BJD, and others—Members of Parliament consistently argued that the Bill represents a fundamental departure from the rights-based framework established over the past decade, and risks violating core guarantees of equality, dignity, and personal liberty, according to The Hindu.

At the centre of this critique lies the removal of the right to self-identification, a principle that had been firmly recognised by the Supreme Court in NALSA v. Union of India. Opposition MPs repeatedly emphasised that this judgment was not merely declaratory, but transformative—it located gender identity within the domain of autonomy, holding that individuals have the right to determine their own gender without medical or bureaucratic validation. By replacing this framework with a system of medical certification and administrative approval, the amendment, they argued, effectively reverses a settled constitutional position.

DMK MP Tiruchi Siva articulated this concern in particularly stark terms, warning in the Rajya Sabha that even if the Bill were to pass through Parliament, it would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court for violating Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, as per Hindustan Times. His intervention reflects a broader apprehension that the amendment is not merely controversial, but constitutionally vulnerable. For many in the opposition, the issue is not one of policy disagreement, but of legislative overreach into areas already protected by judicial interpretation.

This constitutional framing was echoed by multiple MPs who raised concerns about equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15. By narrowing the definition of “transgender person” and excluding those who identify on the basis of self-perception, the law, they argued, creates an arbitrary classification within the community itself. Such classification, lacking a clear rational nexus to the stated objective of protection, may fail the test of reasonable classification under Article 14, reported Indian Express. Moreover, by conditioning recognition on medical criteria, the law risks discriminating against individuals who cannot or do not wish to undergo such processes, thereby indirectly penalising certain forms of gender expression.

“Even a person who is being hanged, is asked what their last wish is? Then why are we not asked about our wishes while creating this (Trans) Bill? Who will listen to our Mann ki Baat?” – BJD MP @SulataDeoMP from Odisha pic.twitter.com/M5XI8WGyaZ

— Yes, We Exist (@YesWeExistIndia) March 25, 2026

Honestly, give @RenukaCCongress Ally of the Year Award already.

What a speech in the Rajya Sabha! Laced with sarcasm, hitting where it hurts, she’s shown why we #RejectTransBill2026 – because it’s illegal, unconstitutional and illogical! pic.twitter.com/n3V3mhcLRg

— Anish Gawande (@anishgawande) March 25, 2026

Equally significant are concerns relating to personal liberty and dignity under Article 21. MPs such as Sandeep Pathak and Priyanka Chaturvedi questioned the logic of requiring transgender persons—unlike cisgender men and women—to subject themselves to medical boards for identity recognition, provided Times of India. This differential treatment, they argued, not only violates the principle of equality but also intrudes into the most intimate aspects of personhood. Gender identity, in this view, is not a fact to be verified but an experience to be respected. The requirement of certification thus transforms a deeply personal aspect of identity into an administrative hurdle, raising concerns about dignity, autonomy, and bodily integrity.

The debate also invoked the right to privacy, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. Opposition MPs argued that the process of medical evaluation and potential disclosure of sensitive personal information to state authorities may constitute an unjustified intrusion into privacy. The absence of clear safeguards regarding data protection, confidentiality, and purpose limitation further intensifies these concerns. In a constitutional framework that recognises privacy as intrinsic to dignity and autonomy, such provisions are likely to face rigorous judicial scrutiny.

BRS Party opposes the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026

The new bill excludes certain identities from the definition of “transgender” based on subjective perceptions.

Identity is personal, and the law should respect that.

The process of… pic.twitter.com/Q6JltuQIyp

— BRS Party (@BRSparty) March 25, 2026

Another strand of opposition critique focused on the penal provisions introduced by the amendment. MPs raised concerns about the vague and expansive language used to define offences such as “inducement” or “influence” in relation to transgender identity. There is apprehension that these provisions could be misused to target families, community networks, healthcare providers, and civil society organisations that support transgender persons as per Indian Express. This raises a classic constitutional issue of overbreadth and vagueness—whether a law, in seeking to address a legitimate concern, casts its net so wide that it captures protected conduct and creates a chilling effect on lawful activity.

The absence of a robust grievance redressal mechanism was also highlighted during the debate. MPs pointed to the fact that thousands of applications for transgender certification under the existing 2019 Act had already been rejected, with little clarity on the grounds for rejection or avenues for appeal, reported Hindustan Times. By strengthening the role of medical boards and district authorities without simultaneously enhancing accountability and transparency, the amendment risks institutionalising arbitrariness. This concern ties directly into the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary state action, which has been read into Article 14 by the Supreme Court.

Importantly, opposition leaders also situated the Bill within a broader pattern of legislative and executive action. Some MPs argued that the amendment reflects a growing tendency to privilege administrative convenience over fundamental rights, and to treat marginalised communities as subjects of regulation rather than holders of rights (The Hindu). This critique is not limited to the transgender context, but speaks to a wider constitutional anxiety about the erosion of rights-based governance.

Outside Parliament, political leaders reinforced these concerns in public statements. Congress MP and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi described the Bill as a “brazen attack” on the constitutional rights and identity of transgender persons, arguing that it strips individuals of their ability to self-identify and subjects them to dehumanising scrutiny. Such interventions indicate that the constitutional critique of the Bill is not confined to legislative debate, but forms part of a larger political discourse on rights and governance.

The BJP government’s Transgender Persons Amendment Bill is a brazen attack on the Constitutional rights and identity of transgender people.

This regressive bill:
– strips transgender people of their ability to self identify, violating a Supreme Court judgement
– ⁠wipes out the… pic.twitter.com/et6lqpgTXw

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) March 24, 2026

Many also took to social media to convey their disagreement with the Bill.

Though I will miss Parliament because of the ongoing #KeralaElections, I am following reports of legislative developments there.

I’m deeply concerned by the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced in the Lok Sabha, which was tabled rather…

— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) March 22, 2026

The @BJP4India Govt’s Transgender Amendment Bill 2026 is a shameful rollback of rights. It kills self-identification, revives colonial-era suspicion, and erases trans men, trans women & non-binary citizens affirmed by the Supreme Court in NALSA.
I reject this bill outright. I…

— Karti P Chidambaram (@KartiPC) March 22, 2026

CPI(M) Polit Bureau demands the withdrawal of the Transgender Persons Amendment Bill pic.twitter.com/JJgvflFDvo

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) March 14, 2026

I stand in solidarity with the transgender community and will strongly raise these serious concerns in Parliament.

Met a delegation of transgender community members and civil society representatives regarding the Transgender Amendment Bill, 2026; a deeply regressive and… pic.twitter.com/WjVYVMZ7fq

— Renuka Chowdhury (@RenukaCCongress) March 20, 2026

Chandra Shekhar Azad @BhimArmyChief Lok Sabha MP of the @AzadSamajParty extends support to #RejectTransBill2026 pic.twitter.com/KeGjgqC4Sm

— Yes, We Exist (@YesWeExistIndia) March 24, 2026

Ultimately, what emerges from the opposition’s position is a coherent constitutional argument: that the amendment undermines the principles of equality, dignity, autonomy, and privacy that form the core of India’s fundamental rights framework. By departing from the jurisprudence established in NALSA v. Union of India and potentially conflicting with the privacy protections recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the law sets the stage for an inevitable judicial confrontation.

Institutional Dissent: Resignations and judicial alarm

Beyond parliamentary opposition and street-level protest, one of the most striking aspects of the controversy surrounding the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 has been the emergence of dissent from within institutional frameworks themselves. This is significant because it reflects not merely ideological disagreement, but a breakdown of confidence within bodies that were specifically created to represent, advise on, and safeguard transgender rights.

Our demand is clear: Take the bill back.

Lawyers Call Trans Amendment Bill “Unconstitutional,” Seek Withdrawal#RejectTransBill2026 pic.twitter.com/W4gfL9YXAE

— P // (they/them) (@pratzhell) March 22, 2026

A particularly visible manifestation of this institutional unease came through the resignation of two members of the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP)—Rituparna Neog and Kalki Subramaniam—immediately following the passage of the Bill in Parliament, as per Times of India. The NCTP, a statutory body constituted under the 2019 Act, is tasked with advising the government on policies affecting transgender persons and ensuring that the community’s concerns are meaningfully represented within governance processes. The resignations, therefore, are not merely symbolic acts of protest; they raise deeper questions about whether the consultative mechanisms built into the law are functioning at all.

I have officially resigned as the Southern States Representative of the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP).
The Ministry passed the #TransgenderAmendmentBill2026 without consulting the Council. I cannot hold a seat where our voices are silenced.
I stand with my… pic.twitter.com/Fkt9SGC2Ai

— Kalki Subramaniam (@QueenKalki) March 25, 2026

In their resignation letters, both members pointed explicitly to the absence of consultation as the central reason for stepping down. Rituparna Neog stated that attempts to engage with the Ministry as “the voice of the community” had gone unheard, suggesting that the institutional channels for dialogue had effectively been bypassed. Kalki Subramaniam went further, describing her continued presence within the Council as untenable in a situation where the “collective voice” of the community had been silenced. Her resignation underscores a fundamental contradiction: a body designed to represent transgender persons was neither consulted nor meaningfully involved in shaping a law that directly alters their legal status.

These resignations must also be understood in the context of prior attempts by NCTP members to engage with the government before the Bill’s passage. Reports indicate that community representatives had, in meetings with ministry officials, strongly reiterated that self-identification—recognised by the Supreme Court—must remain the foundation of gender recognition. They also raised concerns about the proposed definition of “transgender person,” the introduction of medical boards, and the potential for invasive verification processes. Despite these interventions, the final legislation appears to have incorporated none of these suggestions, reinforcing the perception that consultation was procedural rather than substantive, as reported by Times of India.

Parallel to this institutional dissent from within the executive framework is a significant expression of concern emerging from the judiciary itself—more specifically, from a Supreme Court-appointed advisory committee chaired by Justice Asha Menon. This committee, constituted to examine the implementation of transgender rights and recommend improvements, reportedly wrote to the government urging withdrawal of the Bill, Bar & Bench reported. Its intervention is particularly noteworthy because it represents a quasi-judicial assessment of the law’s compatibility with existing constitutional principles.

The committee’s concerns are both substantive and structural. At the core is the removal of self-identification as the basis for legal recognition of gender identity. The committee observed that by linking recognition to biological characteristics or medical processes, the amendment risks excluding individuals who identify as transgender but do not meet these criteria. This, in turn, could limit access to identity documents, welfare schemes, and legal protections—effectively rendering certain sections of the community invisible in the eyes of the law (Bar & Bench).

Equally significant are the committee’s concerns regarding privacy. The amendment’s requirement that details of gender-affirming procedures may be shared with district authorities raises serious questions about confidentiality and bodily autonomy. In a legal landscape shaped by the Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy as a fundamental right, such provisions are seen as potentially intrusive and lacking clear justification. The committee reportedly noted that the objective of such data collection remains unclear, further intensifying apprehensions about surveillance and misuse, according to Bar & Bench.

The advisory body also questioned the necessity of introducing new penal provisions, pointing out that many of the offences outlined in the amendment are already covered under existing criminal laws. This raises a broader concern about legislative redundancy and the possibility that the new provisions may be used in ways that disproportionately affect transgender persons or their support networks. By highlighting these overlaps, the committee implicitly challenges the rationale that the amendment is required to fill legal gaps.

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the committee’s intervention is its implicit constitutional warning. By flagging the removal of self-identification, the committee draws attention to a potential conflict with the principles laid down in NALSA v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court affirmed that gender identity is a matter of personal autonomy and self-determination. This raises the possibility that the amendment, once enacted, could face judicial scrutiny for contravening established constitutional jurisprudence.

Civil Society and Community Voices: Law meets lived reality

If Parliament reflected the formal contest over the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, it is within civil society and community responses that the deeper stakes of the law become visible. Across the country, a wide spectrum of actors—transgender collectives, queer rights groups, feminist alliances, parents’ networks, legal advocates, and independent activists—have articulated a layered critique that moves beyond doctrinal disagreement to foreground lived experience, structural exclusion, and everyday vulnerability.

One of the most organised interventions has come from coalitions such as the All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and the National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR), which formally wrote to the President to return the Bill for reconsideration. Their critique extends not only to the substance of the amendments but also to the process of law-making itself. They argue that the Bill was pushed through without meaningful consultation, in violation of the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014, and describe its passage as marked by “undue and unjustifiable haste”. Substantively, their concerns centre on the removal of self-identification, the imposition of medical certification, and the introduction of vague penal provisions—all of which, they argue, undermine constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

The statement may be read here.

Parallel to these institutional interventions are deeply personal responses emerging from families and support networks. The collective Sweekar, comprising parents of LGBTQIA+ individuals, has framed the amendment through the lens of care and lived reality. Their public appeal emphasises how the law transforms identity into a matter of scrutiny, forcing individuals to “prove” their gender before medical boards and administrative authorities. For families who have struggled to support their children in the face of stigma, this requirement is experienced as a form of state-imposed doubt—one that risks undoing fragile processes of acceptance and belonging.

The statement may be read here.

A recurring concern across civil society responses is the question of access and inequality. Activists have pointed out that the requirement of medical verification presumes access to healthcare, financial resources, and bureaucratic systems—conditions that are unevenly distributed across class, caste, and geography. For many transgender persons, particularly those in rural or economically marginalised settings, navigating a medical board and district administration may be practically impossible. In this sense, the law risks producing exclusion not through explicit denial, but through procedural barriers that render recognition inaccessible.

Another major strand of critique relates to the impact of the law on existing community support structures. Transgender communities in India have historically relied on networks of care—such as the guru-chela system, peer groups, and NGO support—for survival in the face of systemic exclusion. The introduction of penal provisions relating to “inducement” or “influence” has raised fears that these very networks could be criminalised if the provisions are interpreted broadly, reported Hindustan Times. Activists argue that the law, in attempting to regulate identity, risks destabilising the informal but essential systems that sustain transgender lives.

Protest and Public Resistance: From parliament to the streets, a nationwide rejection

The passage of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 has not remained confined to parliamentary debate; it has triggered a widespread, deeply emotional, and sustained wave of resistance across the country. From organised marches to spontaneous gatherings, from formal resignations to cultural expressions of dissent, the response from the transgender community and its allies reflects not just disagreement with the law, but a profound sense of betrayal.

One of the most visible protests unfolded in Mumbai, where over 200 individuals gathered at Azad Maidan in a peaceful but charged demonstration, as reported by The Hindu. The protest was marked not only by slogans and placards, but by a striking use of cultural resistance. Participants sang a reworked version of a popular Bollywood song—“Bill toh kaccha hai ji”—turning satire into a tool of political critique. Slogans such as “Amka naka Trans Bill” (We don’t want the Trans Bill) and “Hum apna haq maangte hai, naa kisi se bheek maangte hai” underscored a central demand: recognition of rights, not conditional welfare. The gathering brought together transgender individuals, families, and allies, with many emphasising that family support remains crucial in a society where stigma continues to shape everyday life. Several speakers warned that the Bill could deepen fear and push individuals further into invisibility.

Transgender people, activists and supporters protested against the contentious Bill at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi.

Trans people, activists & supporters protest against Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, 2026 at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Bill has been passed in Parliament. Activist Kalki Subramaniam has resigned from National Council of Transgender Persons over the bill

Photos: @Surajbisht25 pic.twitter.com/2VeCFiKrRj

— ThePrintIndia (@ThePrintIndia) March 26, 2026

Standing room only for the Jan Sunwai on the Transgender Bill 2026!#RejectTransBill2026 #NoGoingBack pic.twitter.com/XvzUT0puGE

— Anish Gawande (@anishgawande) March 22, 2026

MP Manoj Kumar Jha, Renuka Chowdhury, John Brittas, NCP-SP Spokesperson Anish Gawande, Dalit & Trans Rights activists Grace Banu and several other community member — Krishanu, Tan, Nikunj, Samar, Abigail, etc. raised their voice to #RejectTransBill2026 at a Public Hearing, Delhi pic.twitter.com/mtBYWCdioe

— Yes, We Exist (@YesWeExistIndia) March 22, 2026

Protest also took place in Kolkata.

Beautiful images from Kolkata
The fight shall continue. Press conference tomorrow. #RejectTransBill2026 https://t.co/toD8t7m8i2 pic.twitter.com/WGwQpevV84

— Niloshka ☭ (@ruhunaxxine) March 15, 2026

In Thiruvananthapuram, protests took a more confrontational form, with demonstrators marching from Palayam to Lok Bhavan and publicly burning copies of the Bill, as per The Hindu. Organised under the Queer-Trans-Intersex Rights Joint Action Committee Keralam, the protest explicitly framed the amendment as a violation of constitutional guarantees and a reversal of the rights recognised in 2014. Protesters highlighted how the Bill’s definition fails to reflect regional diversity, noting that identities such as hijra or aravani do not capture the lived realities of transgender persons in Kerala. There was also a strong articulation of legal anxiety: participants warned that vague penal provisions could be weaponised against community networks, support groups, and even families who assist transgender individuals through transition and survival.

Today we met our comrade, a constant supporter of my trans community, Tmt. @ThamizhachiTh, to support our #RejectTransBill2026 campaign. She assured us of the entire DMK’s solidarity with the community. Thanks, Tholar.#transrightsnow #transrightsarehumanrights pic.twitter.com/5Opq2EFbpC

— GRACE BANU (@thirunangai) March 23, 2026

In Hyderabad, protests at Dharna Chowk echoed similar concerns, with demonstrators raising slogans such as “Our Body – Our Rights.” Speakers emphasised that gender identity is a deeply personal and experiential reality that cannot be determined by external authorities. Activists pointed out that the requirement of medical certification undermines dignity and autonomy, while also introducing new forms of surveillance and control.

Beyond these major urban centres, the protests have taken on a decentralised and expanding character. Community members have announced district-level mobilisations, beginning with demonstrations in Ernakulam and Kozhikode, signalling that resistance is likely to intensify rather than dissipate. The protests are not limited to metropolitan visibility; they are spreading into smaller cities and regional networks, reflecting the breadth of concern across the country.

What emerges from these multiple sites of protest is a pattern that goes beyond opposition to specific provisions. There is a shared perception that the law has been imposed without listening, that it redefines identity without consent, and that it transforms lived realities into categories subject to bureaucratic control. The protests reveal a community that is not fragmented but deeply interconnected—transgender persons, intersex individuals, non-binary persons, families, and allies standing together across caste, class, and regional divides.

Protests continue across the country against the (anti) Transgender Rights Bill introduced by the BJP government! #NoGoingBack The community is united to #RejectTransBill2026 pic.twitter.com/XLY600dErj

— Yes, We Exist (@YesWeExistIndia) March 23, 2026

At a deeper level, these mobilisations reflect a struggle over narrative. While the State frames the Bill as a measure of protection and administrative clarity, protesters articulate it as erasure, surveillance, and regression. The streets, in this sense, have become an extension of the constitutional debate—where questions of dignity, autonomy, and recognition are not argued in abstract terms, but lived, voiced, and contested in real time.

The Larger Constitutional Question: Who defines identity?

At its core, the controversy surrounding the Transgender Amendment Bill, 2026 is about the relationship between the individual and the State. It raises a fundamental question: can identity be subject to verification, or must it be recognised as an inherent aspect of personhood?

The Supreme Court in NALSA v. Union of India answered this question by placing identity within the domain of personal autonomy. The 2026 amendment, however, moves in a different direction, emphasising verification, classification, and administrative control.

Related:

Withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 NOW!

Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Bill: Legislating suspicion in the name of “love jihad”

Assam Government to table ‘Love Jihad’ and polygamy bills, CM Sarma says parents of male accused will also face arrest

‘Faith Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai’s Christians rise against Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion bill

The post A Law of Identity, Passed Without Listening: Inside the Transgender Amendment Bill, 2026 and the crisis it has triggered appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a detailed critique of the amendments, the Coalition states that the dilution and destruction of the framework outlined in the historic 2014 judgement of the Supreme Court in its historic National Legal Services Authority-NALSA v Union of India verdict has been achieved in the amendment bill

“through its proposal to narrow the definition of transgender in Section 2 (k). As per the proposed definition, transgender person is limited to ‘socio-cultural identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani, jogta or eunuch’ or those with ‘intersex variations at birth’. It also includes persons who have by ‘force’ been made to ‘present a transgender identity’. It specifically excludes, ‘persons with different sexual orientations and self perceived sexual identities’. ”

The amendment seeks to take away the right of a transgender person to self-identification.  This is made clear by the omission of Section 4 (2) of the 2019 Act which read, ‘A person recognised as transgender under sub-section (1) shall have a right to self- perceived gender identity’.

The statement of objects and reasons makes clear that the aim of the amendment is to exclude. As it notes, ‘The purpose [of the amendment] was and is not to protect each and every class of persons with various gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities.’  The 2026 amendment will ensure that protection of the law is only extended to ‘those who face severe social exclusion due to biological reasons for no fault of their own and no choice of their own.’

This amendment instead of expanding the rights of the transgender community contracts it. Under this amendment, all the rights which transmen enjoyed will be taken away as transmen are no more considered transgender as far as the law is concerned. Moreover, under the amendment,  no person can identity as a transwoman either. The only option for a transgender person under the law is a traditional identity. Those who see their identity on a spectrum fall outside this conservative new definition proposed by the amendment. These are the strong critical arguments advanced by the Karnataka State Gender and Sexuality Minorities Coalition for Convergence (the Coalition).

Even for those who fall within the narrow definition of transgender, the ability to change one’s gender is made far more difficult. The amendment makes it mandatory for a person to get a certificate from a medical board to be appointed by the government, essential for getting identity as a transgender. However, even after getting such a certificate, the District Magistrate has the discretion to grant recognition.

The Coalition has made a strong plea and pitch that this amendment should be opposed as it strikes at the root of self-identification and is therefore completely at odds with the rights recognised under NALSA v Union of India.  Finally, the press statement says that, the transgender community strongly asserts that it will not allow the rights recognised by NALSA and the Trasngender Act, 2019 to be taken away by an amendment.  Passing this amendment will put in jeopardy the rights of thousands and lakhs of persons who are currently recognised as transgender. It will limit the right to self-identification for newer generations and represents a set-back in the struggle for transgender rights.

Strong protests are likely against the union governments move. The statement has been issued by the Members, Karnataka State Gender and Sexuality Minorities Coalition for Convergence and Akkai Padmashali Prakashi Abeda Begum Pruthvi Rakshitha Monika.

Meanwhile, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has also issued a statement condemning the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 as unconstitutional and demanding its immediate withdrawal. The PUCL statement says that the

amendments proposed in the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 constitute a gross dilution of valuable rights provided under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and shall result in exclusion of a large number of Transgender Persons from its ambit, denial of their constitutional and statutory rights and targeting their support system.

The Union Social Justice and Empowerment Minister, Dr. Virendra Kumar introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 (“the Bill”) in Parliament on March 13, 2026. The Bill was not released in the public domain for scrutiny and consultation. The Bill is regressive and nothing but a shocking attempt to take back the hard won rights of the transgender community. The aim of the proposed amendments, says the PUCL, also, is to destroy the framework set by the Supreme Court of India in its historic decision in  NALSA v Union of India (2014) which recognised the right to self-identification of gender by transgender persons and set in place the legal recognition of the rights of the transgender community.

Narrowing of the definition of transgender persons who are entitled to protection by the law

The Bill fundamentally alters the scope of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (“the Act”) by diluting the existing definition of a transgender person under Section 2 (k) of the Act and replacing it with a reductive definition of a transgender person. This tantamount to changing the law altogether and excluding a large number of transgender citizens from the ambit of the law, which is a shocking development.

The amendment at its heart seeks to take away the right of a transgender person to self-identification, which was recognised under the 2019 Act.  This is made clear by  the deletion of  Section 4 (2) of the 2019 Act which  read, ‘A person recognised as transgender under sub-section (1) shall have a right to self- perceived gender identity’.

According to the new definition, only three groups are entitled to the protection of the law, namely

1)    Someone from the traditional socio-cultural Trans groups like Kinnars, Jogtis, Hijras, etc.

2)     Intersex people

3)     Or a person who has been “by force, allurement, inducement, deceit, or undue influence” been subject to “mutilation, castration, amputation or emasculation” and forcibly made to present “a transgender identity” can be considered a transgender person under this new bill.

A proviso has also been added to specifically exclude persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities.

This amendment instead of expanding the rights of the transgender community dilutes it significantly. By way of this amendment, all the rights which transmen enjoyed will be taken away as transmen are no more considered transgender as far as the law is concerned. Moreover, under the amendment, no person can exercise their right to identify as a transwoman either. The only option for a transgender person under the law is a traditional identity. Those who see their identity on a spectrum fall outside this conservative new definition proposed by the amendment. Thus the law expressly discriminates against Trans men, trans women, genderqueer and non-binary persons, because of the narrow definition of transgender persons which the proposed law adopts.

 Discriminatory intent of the 2026 amendment 

The Objects and Reasons of the Bill goes on to underline that the legislative policy has been formulated to only protect those who “face severe social exclusion due to biological reasons for no fault of their own and no choice of their own.” It then goes on to state that the purpose of the Act was not to “protect each and every class of persons with various gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities.”

This goes against the historic NALSA judgement which recognised the right of transgender persons to determine one’s own gender identity as integral to lead a life with dignity as recognised  under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also emphasised that while discrimination on the ground of “sex” is prohibited under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, sex here does not only refer to biological attributes but also one’s self-perceived gender.

Further, states the PUCL, the Bill is premised on an entirely false assertion that the intent of the 2019 Act was not to protect all categories of transgender persons, self perceived sex/gender identities and gender fluidities, in as much as the 2019 Act categorically included all transgender persons, including self-perceived gender identities and did not make any distinction or exclusion on the basis of self-perceived gender or sexuality. This is also clear from the Statement of Object and Reasons of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, which clearly acknowledged that it was being introduced in compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court of India in the NALSA judgment and further stated under clause 4 (c) that the 2019 Bill sought to “confer right upon transgender persons to be recognised as such, and a right to self-perceived gender identity”.

Accordingly, the `Statement of Objects and Reasons’ of the 2026 amendment Bill by itself reveals the falsely-premised regressive and unconstitutional intent of the proposed law. The Bill discriminates upon a large category of transgender persons by denying them the right to be legally recognised by their gender identity.

Till date only around 37000 people have been registered on their portal in the six years since the Act came into operation. There has been little intent displayed by the government to implement the Act. Instead of ensuring that the transgender persons are legally recognised and benefit from the provisions of the Act, the law is being diluted on the excuse of this very non-implementation and claiming that the object of the Bill is that the enactment “works towards only those who are in actual need of such protection”.

The 2026 amendment also introduced a fresh set of hurdles introduced for legal recognition of transgender identity.

Even for those who fall within the narrow definition of transgender, the ability to change one’s gender is made far more difficult, by bringing in amendments to Section 6 and 7 of the Act. The amendment makes it mandatory for a person to get medical certification, for getting a certificate of (transgender) identity. However even after getting such a certificate, the District Magistrate has the discretion to grant recognition or reject it.

The point to be noted is that even if the law is meant for  the restrictive category of so called traditional identities of ‘kinnar, hijra, jogta and aravani’, those who come within this category still have to go through the  hoop of getting a medical certificate. The question of mandating even hijras to get a medical certificate does grave violence to the notion of a traditional identity itself. This provision in effect puts forward a medical test to identity if a person belongs to a socio-cultural identity which has existed even prior to the advent of modern medicine!

This will make it highly difficult for transgender persons to obtain a certificate of identity and get legal recognition of their rights. Instead of making the process easier for transgender persons, so they can avail of and assert their rights under the Act, the government has increased the obstacles for transgender persons to gain legal recognition. This is highly discouraging and will only impede the implementation of the Act, which has in any case been poor.

By removing self-identification and introducing the requirement for medical certification, the state is taking over the role of deciding the gender identity of a transgender person. This not only stands in complete violation of the NALSA judgment and upturns the fundamental basis of the 2019 Act, but infringes upon the constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

Criminalisation of support groups and chosen family of transgender persons

Under the Offences and Penalties chapter, the Bill proceeds to amend Section 18 of the Act. Under the proposed Section 18 (e) and (f), an offence of kidnapping and abduction has been added under the pretence of protecting adults and children. However this provision can be weaponised to target support structures and individuals that provide help to transgender individuals facing abuse and rejection by their natal families. Thus, even with respect to traditional communities, the approach of the amendment is tinged with suspicion and capable of misuse to target chosen families. The offence of kidnapping and abduction introduced by way of the amendment should be with the intention to compel the adult / child to assume, adopt or outwardly present transgender identity through ‘force, allurement, deceit, undue influence or otherwise’ by ‘emasculation, mutilation, castration, amputation or any surgical, chemical or hormonal procedure’.  The broad wordings of the section enable its misuse against any person supporting a transgender person in their attempt to undergo sex change / reassignment procedures or to outwardly present themselves as transgender. Moreover, it infringes upon the right to privacy, choice and autonomy of transgender persons, foregrounding a stereotypical understanding of transgender identity as based on coercion, inducement, fraud and violence, and not on personal choice.

Similarly under the proposed Section 18 (g) and (h) new offences have been introduced for compelling an adult/child by ‘force, threat, coercion, allurement, deception, inducement, or undue influence’ to dress, present or conduct themselves outwardly as a transgender person. The irony of this offence sought to be introduced is that, it is in fact transgender persons who are often subjected to violence, discrimination and abuse, and are compelled to hide their transgender identity rather than to assume it. The provisions are reminiscent of the colonial Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 that criminalised transgender persons for appearing dressed or ornamented as women. The provisions are capable of misuse against the support systems of the transgender person, outside of their natal families, and can put the transgender person to further risk.

The approach of the amendment is thus tinged with suspicion even towards those it unequivocally claims to protect, namely the traditional communities. The amendment in fact defines transgender to include those who are ‘forced’ or ‘induced’ to ‘present a transgender identity’ by ‘emasculation, mutilation or castration’.  It seeks to punish such persons who cause ‘mutilation, emasculation, amputation or castration’. This amendment by foregrounding ‘coercion’ as an essential dimension of the transgender identity, does violence to the element of choice and foreground a stereotypical understanding of transgender identity as based on coercion, fraud and violence not on choice.

These newly added offences which can be misused against supportive individuals and chosen families of transgender persons are punishable with rigorous imprisonment from 5 to 10 years going up to life imprisonment, the offences of physical, sexual, emotional and economic abuse of transgender persons attracts a sentence of only six months to 2 years. Meanwhile with there being no provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024 for rape of transwomen, boys and men  (offence of sodomy), leaving no other recourse under criminal law for sexual assault of a transgender person. It is unfortunate that the government has lost a valuable opportunity to introduce changes in the law that were being demanded by the transgender community with a view to protect their rights, and have instead introduced this Bill curtailing their rights further and increasing the risk of criminalisation.

Passing this amendment will put in jeopardy the rights of thousands of persons who are currently recognised as transgender. It will limit the right to self-identification for newer generations and represents a setback in the struggle for transgender rights.

This amendment is a part of a wider framework of attack on rights

Related:

The discordant symphony: where does the transgender community go from here?

Transgender rights in India: stalled progress and a frustrated community

9 years since the passing of the NALSA judgment, has the cycle of discrimination and ostracism finally been broken for the transgender community?

No proposal for affirmative action in education or employment for transgenders: Govt

Madras HC issues guidelines for sensitisation of stakeholders in LGBTQIA+ matters

Telangana: Transgender individual brutally lynched by mob in Nizamabad

MAT relaxes age criteria, makes provision for grace marks for transgender community in public employment, refuses to direct state to grant reservation

How NRC further marginalises Transgender people

The post Withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 NOW! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Press Statement by Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD)

Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD) wholeheartedly welcomes the recent observations made by the Supreme Court of India during the hearing of a petition filed by Poulomi P. Shukla. Argued by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, the case seeks to rectify the long-standing disparity in inheritance rights for Muslim women—a move IMSD views as a vital step toward fulfilling the democratic promise of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court Raises the Question of Gender Justice

A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R. Mahadevan, observed that a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) may be the “most effective answer” to removing gender bias in laws governing marriage, succession, and property rights. This observation came while examining a plea challenging the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, which the petitioners argue forces unequal inheritance outcomes for women compared to their male counterparts.

A Constitutional Challenge to Discriminatory Laws

Appearing for the petitioner, Adv. Prashant Bhushan argued that the inferior inheritance rights granted to women under the 1937 Act are a direct violation of constitutional guarantees. He emphasized that inheritance is fundamentally a civil and property right; therefore, it cannot be insulated from constitutional scrutiny by invoking religious freedom.

Addressing the Court’s concern that striking down discriminatory portions of the Shariat Act might create a “legal vacuum,” Bhushan proposed a pragmatic and immediate remedy: including Muslim women under the ambit of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This would provide a robust, existing legal framework to ensure parity without leaving women in a state of legal uncertainty.

Gender Bias: A Problem Beyond One Community

Crucially, the Hon’ble Bench noted that gender discrimination in inheritance is not confined to Muslim personal law alone. The Court observed that inequalities persist within the structure of Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) and various customary or tribal practices. As highlighted in various reports, inheritance rights remain skewed in Hindu law as well, indicating that the struggle for property rights is a cross-community challenge.

The Constitutional Framework: Equality and Dignity

IMSD believes the core of this petition is rooted in Constitutional Morality. The Constitution of India clearly guarantees:

* Article 14: Equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

* Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds including religion and sex.

* Article 21: Protection of life, dignity, and personal liberty.

These guarantees must apply fully to Muslim women as equal citizens. While Islamic jurisprudence recognized women’s property rights over fourteen centuries ago, contemporary patriarchal interpretations and social pressures often compel women to relinquish their rightful shares.

Moving Toward Reform

IMSD reiterates that the debate on the UCC has often been politicized by forces seeking to target minority communities. However, gender justice cannot be postponed indefinitely due to identity politics or communal polarization. True reform must be a collaborative effort involving women’s organizations, legal scholars, and minority voices to ensure it is rooted in justice rather than stigmatization.

The Muslim community leadership must also reflect on its historical resistance to reform. This reluctance has often denied justice to women and strengthened communal narratives.

Conclusion: A Call for Constitutional Justice

IMSD supports the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings and calls for a resolution that guarantees equal inheritance rights for Muslim women across India. We advocate for a solution that addresses gender discrimination in all personal laws, ensuring that women from all communities are treated as equal citizens entitled to dignity and justice under the law.

List of Signatories

* Adv. A. J. Jawad – IMSD, Chennai

* Amir Rizvi – Designer, IMSD, Mumbai

* Arshad Alam – Veteran Journalist, IMSD, Delhi

* Askari Zaidi – IMSD, Mumbai

* Bilal Khan – IMSD, Mumbai

* Feroze Mithiborwala, IMSD Co-Convener, Mumbai

* Guddi S. L. – Hum Bharat Ke Log, Mumbai

* Hasina Khan – Bebaak Collective, Navi Mumbai

* Irfan Engineer – CSSS, Mumbai

* Javed Anand, Convener, IMSD, Mumbai

* Jeibunnisa Reyaz – Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, BMMA, Madurai

* Khatoon Sheikh – BMMA, Mumbai

* Adv. Lara Jesani – IMSD, Mumbai

* Mariya Salim – BMMA, New Delhi

* Nasreen M – BMMA, Karnataka

* Nasreen Rangoonwala – IMSD, Mumbai

* Nishat Hussain – BMMA, Jaipur

* Niyazmin Daiya – BMMA, Delhi

* Noorjehan Safiya Niyaz – BMMA, Mumbai

* Prof. Nasreen Fazalbhoy – IMSD, Mumbai

* Rahima Khatun – BMMA, Kolkata

* Salim Sabuwala – IMSD, Mumbai

* Prof. Sandeep Pandey – Magsaysay Awardee, Lucknow

* Sandhya Gokhale – Forum Against Oppression of Women, Mumbai

* Shabana Dean – IMSD, Pune

* Shafaq Khan – Theater Personality, IMSD, Mumbai

* Shalini Dhawan – Designer, IMSD, Mumbai

* Shama Zaidi – Scriptwriter, IMSD, Mumbai

* Shamsuddin Tamboli – Muslim Satyashodak Mandal

* Prof. Sujata Gothoskar – Forum Against Oppression of Women, Mumbai

* Sultan Shahin – Editor, New Age Islam, Delhi

* Dr. Sunilam – Farmer Leader, Gwalior

* Dr. Suresh Khairnar – Former President, Rashtriya Sewa Dal, Nagpur

* Yashodhan Paranjpe – IMSD, Social Activist, Mumbai

* Zakia Soman – BMMA, New Delhi

* Zeenat Shaukat Ali – Wisdom Foundation

The post Equal Inheritance Rights for Muslim Women: Upholding Constitutional Justice and Gender Equality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Speaking to the media, as reported in The Times of India, Baraiya had proffered a self-propounded, twisted “theory” on why infant girls aged 4 to 10 months were victims of sexual crimes. “In India, the maximum number of rapes are visited upon women from SC, ST and OBC categories. The theory of rape is, when a man, walking down the road, sees a beautiful, extremely beautiful woman, then his mind could be distracted, a rape may follow (sic),” he had said.

He had then asked: “Are there any extremely beautiful women among SCs, STs and OBCs? Why then are they raped? Because such instructions are given in our religious scripts… It has been mentioned that if you have intimacy with women of these castes then it is the same as going on apilgrimage.”

Left shame-faced, Congress went on the defensive. Party state president Jitu Patwari was forced to issue a statement on Saturday evening saying a criminal who rapes women has no caste or religion. He is simply a criminal who deserves harshest punishment under law … What Phool Singh Baraiya said is his personal opinion. Congress does not agree with it. He has been asked to clarify his remark.”

Related:

Manipur gang-rape survivor dies without justice, three years after 2023 ethnic violence

Protest outside Delhi HC gate over bail in Unnao rape case, survivor’s mother asks for maximum punishment

Delhi HC grants bail pending appeal to Unnao rape convict Kuldeep Singh Sengar

The post MP: Beautiful woman ‘distracts, rape may follow’ says Cong MLA, outrage follows appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The survivor, who was abducted and gang-raped in May 2023 during the early days of the Meitei–Kuki ethnic clashes, passed away on January 10, 2026, while undergoing treatment in Guwahati. According to her family and Kuki organisations, the injuries and trauma she suffered never healed, leaving her physically fragile and psychologically withdrawn until her death.

Abduction and assault amid breakdown of law and order

As reported by The Indian Express, the woman—then 18 years old—was kidnapped on May 15, 2023, from Imphal while attempting to withdraw money from an ATM. She was taken away in a white Bolero by four armed men dressed in black shirts, allegedly associated with Meitei militant group Arambai Tenggol, which was active during the peak of the violence.

In her First Information Report (FIR), the survivor alleged that she was handed over to the men by members of the Meira Paibi, a Meitei women’s vigilante group—an allegation repeatedly raised by Kuki organisations.

She was taken to multiple locations, including Langol and Bishnupur, where three of the men allegedly raped her repeatedly while the fourth drove the vehicle. She later told NDTV in a July 2023 interview that she was blindfolded, denied food and water, tortured through the night, and left for dead on a hilltop.

“I was taken to a hill where they tortured and assaulted me. Whatever miserable things they could do to me, they did,” she had said.

In the early hours of the next morning, she managed to escape under the pretext of going to relieve herself. Injured and bleeding, she ran downhill, eventually hiding under a pile of vegetables in an autorickshaw that took her to safety. She was first treated in Kangpokpi and later referred to hospitals in Kohima, Guwahati, and Manipur.

Delayed fir, CBI probe, and no arrests

Due to the near-total collapse of law and order in Manipur at the time, the survivor could file a police complaint only on July 21, 2023—over two months after the assault. A zero FIR was registered at Kangpokpi police station and later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

According to The Hindu, the case is currently being heard in a special CBI court in Guwahati. However, nearly two and a half years later, no arrests have been made, charges have not been framed, and the survivor’s family says they received no meaningful updates from either the Manipur Police or the CBI.

Prolonged trauma and declining health

The woman’s family told Newslaundry and other media outlets that she never recovered from the physical injuries or psychological shock of the assault. She suffered from breathing difficulties, uterine complications, depression, and recurring illness.

“My daughter was always smiling and full of life before this happened,” her mother said. “After the incident, she lost her smile. She would stay at home, not talk much, sometimes read the Bible, sometimes watch TV.”

The Indigenous Tribal Leaders Forum (ITLF) stated that she developed serious uterine and internal injuries and required repeated hospitalisation across three states. While the family received some compensation, its source and adequacy remain unclear.

Death sparks outrage, renewed demands

Following her death, Kuki organisations in Manipur and Delhi organised candlelight vigils and issued strong statements demanding justice. The ITLF described her death as “another painful testimony to the ruthless targeting of the Kuki-Zo people” and reiterated that the community now has “no option but to demand a separate administration for our safety, dignity, and survival” (PTI).

The Kuki Students’ Organisation (KSO), Delhi & NCR demanded that her death be officially recognised as a consequence of the 2023 violence.

“Any attempt to treat her death as unrelated would amount to a denial of justice and an erasure of responsibility,” the KSO said, calling on the Centre to expedite the creation of a separate administrative arrangement for tribal communities.

The Kuki-Zo Women’s Forum, Delhi & NCR remembered the survivor for her resilience. “For nearly three years, she carried pain that no human being should ever have to bear,” the group said.

‘A National Shame’: Brinda Karat

Senior CPI(M) leader and former Rajya Sabha MP Brinda Karat described the survivor’s death as a “national shame,” underscoring the failure of the state and justice system nearly two years after the crime, as per PTI.

“She was victimised twice—first by politics that fuelled hatred and violence, and then by a system that failed to act with urgency,” Karat said. A member of the CPI(M) politburo and former general secretary of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), Karat has been documenting cases of sexual violence in Manipur and had met the survivor’s family during a visit to the state.

Karat blamed the political climate fostered by the RSS–BJP for creating an atmosphere of impunity that allowed armed groups to operate unchecked during the violence. “Her death without justice is a damning reflection on our administrative and judicial institutions,” she said, adding that the delay cost the survivor not only dignity, but ultimately her life.

A broader crisis of accountability

The survivor’s death has once again drawn attention to unresolved cases of sexual violence during the Manipur conflict, which erupted in May 2023 over land rights, political representation, and ethnic tensions between the valley-dominant Meitei community and hill-based Kuki-Zo tribes.

According to official figures, more than 260 people have been killed and over 60,000 displaced. Manipur has been under President’s Rule since February 2025, yet survivors and families continue to report inertia, silence, and denial of justice.

“She was not only a daughter of Manipur,” Brinda Karat said, “but a daughter of India.”

Her death—without arrests, without accountability, and without closure—now stands as a stark indictment of the state’s response to sexual violence in conflict zones, and a reminder of the human cost of prolonged inaction.

Related:

Broken State, Divided People: PUCL releases report of Independent People’s Tribunal on Manipur

Manipur Violence: Two years down, health rights activists demand restoration and spread of essential services all over state

Arambai Tenggol: champions of Manipur’s ‘integrity’ or a Meitei communal militia?

dia

2024: Peace, a distant dream for Manipur

Fresh violence grips Manipur: Clashes in Jiribam and widespread protests after rape and brutal killings

Manipur on Edge: Violent Clashes Erupt on the day following Kuki-Zo Protests Demanding Separate Administration, action against state CM based on leaked tapes

The post Manipur gang-rape survivor dies without justice, three years after 2023 ethnic violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The controversial and recently conducted elections to the civic body –given huge allegations of malpractices in voter lists (exclusion of voters), delible ink being used, introduction of new machines etc. were conducted over 24 administrative wards. From sewerage operations to public health, the BMC handles local civic issues in these wards, named alphabetically from A to T. Each administrative ward is further subdivided into smaller electoral wards for which corporators are elected. There are 227 of these electoral wards. Out of these, 113 fall under the General Category, while 114 are reserved for women, including women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, and the Backwards Class of Citizens. So 121 women elected in all.

Of these 121 women, there are 14 Muslim women and one Christian woman. The break up party wise is as follows:

BJP’s winning women candidates

Ward 2 – Tejaswi Ghosadkar

Ward 8 – Yogita Patil

Ward 13 – Rani Dwivedi-Nighot

Ward 14 – Seema Kiran Shinde

Ward 15 – Jigna Shah

Ward 16 – Shweta Korgaonkar

Ward 17 – Dr Shilpa Sangore

Ward 19 – Dakshata Kavthankar

Ward 21 – Leena Deherkar

Ward 24 – Swait Jaiswal

Ward 25 – Nisha Bangera

Ward 27 – Neelam Gurav

Ward 31 – Manisha Yadav

Ward 44    – Sangeeta Sharma

Ward 46 – Yogita Koli

Ward 52    – Priti Satam

Ward 57 – Shrikala Pille

Ward 60    – Saylee Kulkarni

Ward 69 – Sudha Singh

Ward 71 – Sunita Makvani

Ward 72    – Mamta Yadav

Ward 80 – Disha Yadav

Wars 81 – Kesarben Murji Patel

Ward 82    – Ameen Jagdeshwari

Ward 84 – Anjali Samant

Ward 98    – Alka Kerkar

Ward 100 – Swapna Mhatre

Ward 103 – Hetal Gala

Ward 105 – Anita Vaiti

Ward 108 – Deepika Ghag

Ward 112 – Sakshi Dalvi

Ward 116 – Jagruti Patil

Ward 126 – Archana Bhalerao

Ward 129 – Ashwini Matekar

Ward 131 – Rakhi Jadhav

Ward 132 – Ritu Tavde

Ward 149 – Sushma Sawant

Ward 151 – Kashish Phulwariya

Ward 152 – Asha Marathe

Ward 172 – Rajeshri Shirvadkar

Ward 173 – Shilpa Keluskar

Ward 174 – Sakshi Kanojia

Ward 176 – Rekha Yadav

Ward 190 – Sheetal Gambhir

Ward 218 – Snehal Tendulkar

Ward 222 – Rita Makvana

Ward 227 – Gaoravi Shivalkar-Narwekar

These total 47 women councillors

Shiv Sena (UBT) women councillors

Ward 12 – Sarika Zhore

Ward 32 – Geeta Bhandari

Ward 39 – Pushpa Kalambe

Ward 56 – Laxmi Nitin Bhatiya

Ward 64 – Khan Rashid

Ward 73 – Lona Rawat

Ward 77 – Shivani Parab

Ward 83 – Sonali Sabe

Ward 88 – Sharvari Parab

Ward 93 – Rohini Kamble

Ward 94 – Pragya Bhutkar

Ward 114 – Rajul Patil

Ward 117 – Shweta Pawaskar

Ward 118 – Sunita Jadhav

Ward 121 – Priyadarshini Nagesh

Ward 124 – Sakina Ayub Sheikh

Ward 127 – Swarupa Patil

Ward 153 – Minakshi Patankar

Ward 155 – Snehal Shivkar

Ward 157 – Dr. Sarita Mhaske

Ward 158 – Chitra Sangle

Ward 169 – Pravina Morajkar

Ward 171 – Adv. Rani Yerunkar

Ward 186 – Archana Shinde

Ward 189- Harshala More

Ward 191 – Vishakha Raut

Ward 193 – Hemangi Varlikar

Ward 198 – Aboli Khadiye

Ward 199 – Kishori Pednekar

Ward 200 – Urmila Panchal

Ward 202 – Shraddha Jadhav

Ward 203 – Shraddha Pednekar

Ward 210 – Sonam Jamsudkar

Ward 220 – Sampada Mayekar

This totals 34 women corporators from SS (UBT).

Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) women councillors:

Ward 1 – Rekha Yadav

Ward 11 – Dr. Aditi Khursange

Ward 18 – Sandhya Doshi

Ward 42 – Dhanashree Bharadkar

Ward 51 – Varsha Tembvalkar

Ward 78 – Sofi Abdul Jabbar

Ward 133 – Nirmiti Kanade

Ward 142 – Apeksha Khandekar

Ward 146 – Samruddhi Kate

Ward 147 – Pragya Sadafule

Ward 148 – Anjali Naik

Ward 156 – Ashwini Matekar

Ward 160 – Kiran Landge

Ward 163 – Shaila Lande

Ward 166 – Minal Sanjay Turde

Ward 180 – Trushna Vishvasrao

Ward 209 – Yamini Jadhav

This totals 17 women corporators.

Women Corporators from Congress:

Ward 33 – Qamar Jahan Moin Siddiqui

Ward 28 – Ajanta Yadav

Ward 61 – Divya Sinh

Ward 90 – Adv. Tulip Miranda

Ward 110 – Asha Suresh Koparkar

Ward 101 – Karen Dmello

Ward 150 – Vaishali Ajit Shendekar

Ward 179 – Ayesha Vanu

Ward 183 – Asha Kale

Ward 184 – Sajida Khan

Ward 213 – Nasima Javed Juneja

Ward 216 – Rajashree Bhatankar

Ward 224- Ruksana Parikh Nurulamin

This makes a total of 13 women candidates.

MNS Four Women Councillors

Ward 38 – Surekha Parab

Ward 74 – Vidha Aarya

Ward 128 – Sae Shirke

Ward 205- Supriya Dilip Dalvi

AIMIM: (Four councillors)

Ward 134 – Mehjabin Khan

Ward 139 – Shabana Sheikh

Ward 143 – Shabana Kazi

Ward 145 – Khairunnisa Hussein

Samajwadi Party (One woman candidate who won)

Ward 212 – Abrahani Amrin Shehzad

Nationalist Congress Party (One woman candidate who won)

Ward 168 – Dr Saeeda Khan

Related:

Academic, Deepak Pawar to Mumbai Police: Are frivolous cases against us –filed after a peaceful demonstration to save Marathi schools –being dropped because of the upcoming BMC polls?

BMC Polls: ECI claims superintendence on citizenship even as Foreigners (NRIS) enter Mumbai airport carrying Indian Voter IDs

The post BMC: Women corporators past the 50% mark, 121 women get elected in 2026 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recent judicial interventions—particularly the Supreme Court’s directions to High Courts to furnish data on pending acid attack trials and the Allahabad High Court’s decision to convert a long-pending PIL on acid sale regulation into a suo moto proceeding—underscore that the crisis is no longer doctrinal but institutional as per reports in LiveLaw. Despite pathbreaking jurisprudence laid down after a decade long legal battle in the Laxmi case, the Supreme Court was compelled, in 2025, while hearing a petition highlighting a 16-year delay in an acid attack trial, to describe the situation as a “shame on the system” and a “mockery of justice”. The SC then directed all High Courts to furnish data on pending acid attack cases.

This Legal Resource examines acid attack jurisprudence not as a static body of law but as a pattern of repeated judicial correction, necessitated by persistent failures of implementation. Drawing from case law, legislative history, policy frameworks, and scholarly critiques, it argues that acid attack jurisprudence today reveals the limits of law when administrative and procedural systems fail to internalise constitutional mandates.

Laxmi v. Union of India: Constitutionalising Survivor-Centric Justice

The jurisprudential foundation of acid attack regulation in India was laid by Laxmi v. Union of India, a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2006 by survivor Laxmi Aggarwal. Laxmi was 15 yrs old in 2005 when a 32-old man, Naeem Khan, approached her with a marriage proposal. After she rejected him, nearly ten months later, Naeem again proposed to her; upon her second refusal, he attacked her by throwing acid on her face, with his brother Kamran aiding him in the act.

Argued consistently by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, the petition reframed acid violence as a failure of State regulation rather than an isolated criminal act. The Supreme Court accepted this framing, holding that the unrestricted availability of acid, absence of medical support, and lack of compensation mechanisms violated Article 21 of the Constitution (see Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427).

Across multiple orders, the Court issued structural directions mandating the regulation of acid sales, free medical treatment for survivors in both public and private hospitals, and minimum compensation of ₹3 lakh. These directions were significant not merely for their content but for their constitutional logic: dignity, bodily integrity, and rehabilitation were recognised as enforceable rights, not discretionary welfare measures.

This shift has been closely analysed in legal scholarship. The NLS Law Journal notes that Laxmi represents a rare moment where Indian courts explicitly connected criminal law reform with long-term socio-economic rehabilitation, recognising acid attacks as producing lifelong disabilities requiring sustained State intervention rather than one-time relief (see Ajita Tandon, Acid Attacks in India: A Judicial and Legislative Response, NLS Law Journal, Vol. 13, available here).

From Judicial Directions to Statutory Reform: Codification Without Capacity

Following Laxmi, the Law Commission of India was impleaded and submitted Report No. 226 (2008), recommending a distinct offence for acid attacks and stronger regulation of corrosive substances (report available here). These recommendations later informed the Justice Verma Committee Report (2013), which acknowledged acid violence as a gendered crime requiring specific legislative recognition.

This culminated in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which inserted Sections 326A and 326B of the IPC, along with Section 357B of the CrPC, mandating compensation in addition to fines. On paper, these provisions created a comprehensive framework combining punishment, deterrence, and victim relief. The specific recognition of acid attacks introduced via Sections 326A and 326B of the IPC has been largely preserved in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to maintain the gravity of the offense. These translated into Sections 124(1) and 124(2) under the BNS, 2023, which read as –

124.  (1) Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt or causes a person to be in a permanent vegetative state shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine:

(2) Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

However, scholarship consistently highlights that legislative codification did not translate into institutional readiness. As Ajita Tandon’s analysis points out, while the law “responded swiftly in text,” the administrative machinery required for compensation disbursal, rehabilitation, and prioritised trials remained fragmented and uneven across States.

Trial Delays and the Right to Speedy Justice: A Systemic Breakdown

The most severe manifestation of this institutional failure has been the extraordinary delay in criminal trials involving acid attacks. In 2025, the Supreme Court, while hearing a petition highlighting a 16-year delay in an acid attack trial, described the situation as a “shame on the system” and a “mockery of justice”, and directed all High Courts to furnish data on pending acid attack cases, reported by LiveLaw.

This intervention is constitutionally significant. Acid attack cases engage the right to speedy trial under Article 21 in its most aggravated form: survivors suffer irreversible physical harm, prolonged psychological trauma, and social stigma, all of which are compounded by procedural delay. The Court’s insistence on national data collection implicitly acknowledges that delay itself functions as a form of secondary victimisation.

The consequences of such delay are visible in outcomes. In a 2009 acid attack case, a Delhi court acquitted the accused after nearly 16 years, citing evidentiary weaknesses that had emerged over time—an outcome widely reported as emblematic of systemic delay undermining prosecution itself, as per a report in The Times of India.

While the recent SC directives may we welcome, the issues and failures are systemic. One after another of human rights issues, whether it be the transparency within police conducts in police stations (SC directive on installation of CCTVs in all Police Stations)[1] or right of the accused to fair trial (directives laid down in DK Basu)[2], the police and administration have consistently ignored the breakthroughs made by the court. This amounts to institutional amnesia or downright defiance.

Regulation of Acid Sales: Judicial Supervision in the Face of Executive Inertia

Despite unequivocal directions in Laxmi, regulation of acid sales remains inconsistent. This failure came sharply into focus when the Allahabad High Court converted a decade-old PIL on acid sale regulation into a suo motu proceeding, holding that issues of acid regulation and survivor compensation implicate continuing public interest and cannot be abandoned due to petitioner withdrawal, reported LiveLaw.

The Court also reiterated that compensation cannot be made contingent on the identification or conviction of the offender, reinforcing the constitutional principle that survivor relief flows from State obligation, not prosecutorial success. This episode exemplifies a recurring pattern in acid attack jurisprudence: courts are repeatedly forced to re-enter regulatory terrain they have already mapped, due to executive inaction.

Compensation and Rehabilitation: Between Entitlement and Administrative Apathy

Compensation has remained central to acid attack jurisprudence since Laxmi, yet its implementation has been deeply uneven. The Ministry of Home Affairs’ 2024 guidelines reiterate that acid attack survivors are entitled to a minimum compensation of ₹3 lakh and free medical treatment (guidelines available here). However, High Court interventions reveal persistent delays and bureaucratic indifference.

For instance, the Allahabad High Court has censured the Uttar Pradesh government for delays extending over a decade in disbursing compensation to acid attack survivors, describing such conduct as insensitive and violative of constitutional obligations, reported by The Times of India.

Socio-legal scholarship criticises this model for reducing rehabilitation to symbolic monetary relief, often divorced from the realities of lifelong medical care, psychological counselling, loss of livelihood, and social reintegration (see IJLMH, A Socio-Legal Analysis on Acid Attacks in India, available here).

NCRB data provides only a partial picture of acid attack violence. While annual figures record reported cases, they offer little insight into trial duration, pendency, or access to compensation. Recent analyses indicate that a substantial majority of acid attack cases remain pending for years, while conviction rates remain low.

Scholars caution that these figures significantly understate the scale of the problem due to under-reporting driven by stigma, fear, and lack of institutional support—concerns repeatedly flagged in academic literature.

The Cultural Lens: Chhapaak

The 2020 film Chhapaak, while a significant cultural milestone in sensitising the public to the horrors of acid violence, also became a focal point for a profound legal debate regarding the “moral rights” and visibility of legal professionals. Advocate Aparna Bhat, who represented Laxmi Agarwal for over a decade—from the initial trial at Patiala House Courts to the landmark Supreme Court PIL—approached the Delhi High Court when the filmmakers failed to acknowledge her contribution in the credits. This omission raised a critical ethical and legal question: can the labour of a lawyer, which provides the very documentary and procedural backbone of a “true story,” be erased in its cinematic retelling? The Delhi High Court, invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel, ruled in Bhat’s favour, noting that her assistance was provided on the assurance of recognition. Bar and Bench reported that the court directed that the line, “Inputs by Ms. Aparna Bhat, the lawyer who represented Laxmi Agarwal, are acknowledged,” be added to the film. This intervention was not merely about a “thank you”; it was a judicial validation of the role of legal activists in translating personal trauma into transformative constitutional reform.

Conclusion

The trajectory of acid attack jurisprudence in India reveals a striking pattern. Courts have articulated robust constitutional principles, legislatures have codified them into law, and yet survivors continue to face delay, neglect, and regulatory failure. The problem today is not doctrinal uncertainty but institutional inertia.

Without administrative accountability, procedural reform, and sustained investment in survivor rehabilitation, even the most progressive jurisprudence risks becoming symbolic. Acid attack law in India now stands at an inflection point: its future efficacy will depend not on further judicial creativity, but on whether the State finally honours the constitutional commitments already laid down by the courts.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Shyamli Pengoriya)

[1] This earlier resource explores the suo motu by SC in September 2025 action highlights how weak compliance with its own (SC) 2020 CCTV directions has left detainees vulnerable and accountability elusive.

[2] Another judicial directive that spanned decades, DK Basu,but which directives stand un-implemented.

Related:

When ‘Marginal’ Means Massive: The invisible weight of gendered violence in NCRB crime statistics 2023

Disfigured but not defeated: Hajida, an acid attack survivor, ensured the culprit does not get away. Now she needs your help

Jharkhand HC expresses dismay over Govt.’s lack of response to compliance orders for Acid Attack survivors

The post Acid Attacks: The judicial struggle to regulate acid violence in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

मैं दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट गेट नंबर 5 के बाहर उन्नाव रेप पीड़िता के न्याय के लिए खड़ी हूँ। चुप रहना अपराध है।#UnnaoRapeCase #JusticeForUnnaoVictim pic.twitter.com/xfePXbLpTu

— Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना (@yogitabhayana) December 26, 2025

These protests have taken place amid grave concerns expressed by the Unnao rape survivor and her family over the suspension of the BJP politician, Sengar’s jail term. Responding to the high court order, the survivor told Hindustan Times, “I am extremely upset by what has happened today in the court.” She also said she felt “extremely unsafe” after learning about the bail conditions granted to Sengar.

Additionally, speaking to ANI news agency on Friday, the victim’s mother expressed strong objection to the bail, saying, “His bail should be rejected… We will knock on the doors of the Supreme Court. We have lost faith in the high court… If we don’t get justice in the Supreme Court, we will go to another country… The person guilty of my husband’s murder should be hanged immediately.”

It is only after this determined expression of the need for justice, public outrage and protests from December 21-24 that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), announced its late evening decision on December 25, 2025 to appeal this suspension of sentence and bail to Sengar, BJP leader and former MLA.

Photographs shared by the news agency showed security personnel asking protesters to put an end the demonstration immediately, warning that legal action would be taken if they did not disperse within five minutes. Women’s rights activist Yogita Bhayana, who was present at the protest, said, “Women across India are deeply hurt that the sentence of a rapist has been overturned. This happened in this very court. So, we will seek justice from the same place where the injustice occurred,” ANI reported.

Yet another protester told ANI, “On what grounds was Kuldeep Sengar granted bail, when it was declared that he had committed rapes and murders? If a life sentence was given to him, then why is he out?… We demand that the rapist should go behind bars so women feel safe.”

Kuldeep Sengar was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2019 for the rape of a 17-year-old girl in Uttar Pradesh’s Unnao in 2017. On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court suspended the expelled Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader’s life sentence, noting that he had already served more than the maximum punishment prescribed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

An earlier protest in the capital was also met with forcible eviction by the Delhi police.

एक गैंगरेप पीड़िता के साथ ऐसा व्यवहार उच्चित है???

उसकी यही गलती है कि न्याय की माँग कर रही है ?

ये कैसा न्याय है ???#JusticeForUnnaoVictim pic.twitter.com/F1mSmOhQEs

— Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना (@yogitabhayana) December 23, 2025

CRPF Intimidation?

The court’s judgement has triggered fresh fears within the survivor’s family, despite the order barring Sengar from coming within a five-kilometre radius of her. The survivor’s family has also been granted protection by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). However, controversy has also been generated over the politicisation of this para-military protection including political interference, when earlier this week, the survivor and her family were trying to travel by road to Delhi to meet with advocates. According to an interview played out on social media she told activist and supporter Yogita Bhayana that initially the CRPF tried actively to prevent her travelling to Delhi for legal advice and redressal and only when she raised her voice in objection “was she allowed.” This raises serious questions on the active monitoring and interference in witness protection ordered by the court especially since the para-military forces like the CRPF come under the union home ministry.

Listen to the video on this tweet

पीड़िता के साथ ऐसा व्यवहार gazab – आप खुद सुनिए उन्नाव गैंगरेप पीड़िता को

निःशब्द….#JusticeForUnnaoVictim pic.twitter.com/StjZiCxbMA

— Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना (@yogitabhayana) December 24, 2025

The survivor cited past incidents to explain her concerns, saying, “He is a powerful man. He would get his men to do his dirty work for him. When my car met with an accident in which two of my relatives and my lawyer died in 2019, Sengar didn’t do it himself. His henchmen did. Now that he is out, we are all unsafe.”

Now 24, the survivor is a resident of Delhi. Following the grant of conditional bail to Sengar, she has been provided court-ordered protection and is accompanied by five to 11 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel at all times. However, her mother has said that security cover provided to her and her three children until March this year (2025) was subsequently withdrawn.

Related:

Delhi HC grants bail pending appeal to Unnao rape convict Kuldeep Singh Sengar

Unnao rape case: Kuldeep Singh Sengar convicted

Ex-BJP MLA Kuldeep Sengar, brother convicted in Unnao rape survivor’s father’s death

The post Protest outside Delhi HC gate over bail in Unnao rape case, survivor’s mother asks for maximum punishment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. Sengar was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 15 lakh along with three sureties of the same amount.

Several conditions were imposed by the high court on Sengar’s release. Among these, he has been barred from entering within a five-kilometre radius of the survivor’s residence and has been instructed not to threaten or contact the survivor or her mother. The court has also directed him to remain in Delhi during the period of bail and to report to the police every Monday. It stated that any violation of any of these conditions would result in cancellation of bail, LiveLaw reported.

The court held that at this stage the offence under section 5(c) of the POSCO Act was not made out. The judgement argued that at this stage the offence did not amount to aggravated sexual assault under Section 5 of the POSCO Act.

The Delhi High Court judgement overturns, in large part, the judgement dated December 16, 2019 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge – West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [“learned Trial Court”] in Sessions Case No. 448/2019 arising out of FIR No. 96/2018 registered at Police Station Makhi, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, reregistered as RC-08(S)/2018, PS CBI/ACB/Lucknow.

Sengar, reports The Hindu, who is currently lodged in prison, will, however, remain in jail as he is also serving a 10-year sentence in the custodial death case of the rape victim’s father. Sengar, it has been alleged, kidnapped the girl and raped her in 2017, when she was still a minor. The rape case and other connected cases were transferred to Delhi from a trial court in Uttar Pradesh on the directions of the Supreme Court in August 2019.

Now, following the December 23 order, the suspension of sentence will remain in force during the pendency of Sengar’s appeal challenging his conviction and sentence awarded by a Delhi trial court in December 2019. In that verdict, the trial court had convicted him for the rape of a 17-year-old girl and sentenced him to life imprisonment, along with imposing a fine of Rs 25 lakh. The trial court observed, that there were no mitigating circumstances and noted that Sengar, an elected public representative at the time, had breached public trust.

The rape case and three connected cases were transferred from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi by order of the Supreme Court on August 1, 2019 with directions for day-to-day hearings. The survivor was provided court-mandated protection measures following the conviction, including the option of a safe house and change of identity.

Sengar’s appeal against his separate conviction in the custodial death case of the survivor’s father is still awaiting a judicial outcome. In that case, he has been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He has sought suspension of sentence on the ground that he has already spent a substantial period in custody.

There is also a third case reports The Times of India– a collision on the road in which the survivor and her lawyer were critically injured and two of her aunts were killed – a separate case had been registered against Sengar. In December 2021, a Delhi court discharged him in that matter, holding that there was no evidence linking him to the incident.

Yesterday, Tuesday December 23, Delhi police detailed the protesting family members of the Survivor at India Gate. Visuals of the Delhi police manhandling protesters have been circulating on social media.

Rapist & former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar:

>Raped a 17-year-old minor girl.
>Police did not act against him.
>Girl attempted self-immolation.
>Case was later taken up by CBI
>Killed victim’s father
>a court convicted him of rape.
>sentenced to life imprisonment.
>a truck of… pic.twitter.com/QPOFwaDfeb

— Mohit Chauhan (@mohitlaws) December 23, 2025

Unnao rape survivor protesting at the India gate against the Delhi High Court order suspending sentence of ex-UP BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar was bundled in a van by the police. pic.twitter.com/KPybock3LI

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) December 24, 2025

A battery of close two dozen advocates represented Kildeep Sengar in the Delhi High Court: these were N Hariharan Sr Adv, SPM Tripathi, Amit Sinha, Deepak Sharma, Rahul Poonia, Mr. Ambuj Singh, Ashish Tiwari, Gaurav Kumar, Saurabh Dwivedi, Ms. Punya Rekha, Ms. Angara, Ms. Vasundhara N, Aman Akhtar, Sana Singh, Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Ms. Gauri Ramachandran, Manish Vashisht, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Aishwarya Sengar, Mr. Vedansh Vashisht and Mr. Swapan Singhal.

The judgement of the Delhi High Court may be read here.

Background

Sengar, from Bangarmau in Uttar Pradesh, was accused in connection with a 2017 case involving a teenage girl from Unnao district. An FIR was eventually registered against him under the criminal law and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act following the allegations. On April 3, 2018, the girl’s father was allegedly assaulted by individuals linked to Sengar and later died on April 8 after falling ill while in custody. A local shopkeeper, who had reportedly witnessed the assault gave a statement to the CBI and later died under unexplained circumstances on August 18, 2018.

The case drew national attention and outrage after the girl attempted self-harm outside the Uttar Pradesh chief minister’s residence and was subsequently critically injured in a road collision that resulted in the deaths of two family members. In 2019, the Supreme Court transferred the case and three related matters from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi and ordered expedited hearings. In December 2019, a Delhi trial court convicted Sengar in the main case. He was also sentenced separately to ten years’ imprisonment in the custodial death case relating to the girl’s father.

Now

On December 23, 2025, the Delhi High Court suspended Sengar’s life sentence and granted him bail pending the outcome of his appeal. The order was passed by Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, subject to Sengar furnishing a personal bond of Rs 15 lakh with three sureties.

The court directed that Sengar must not enter within a five-kilometre radius of the complainant’s residence, must not contact or intimidate her or her family, must remain in Delhi during the bail period, and must report to the police every Monday. It stated that any breach of these conditions would lead to cancellation of bail. To be precise, the high court has suspended the life sentence awarded to Sengar for the duration of the pendency of his appeal. The suspension is what legally allows the court to grant him bail.

Related:

Unnao rape case: Kuldeep Singh Sengar convicted

Ex-BJP MLA Kuldeep Sengar, brother convicted in Unnao rape survivor’s father’s death

Will Sangita Sengar talk about BJP’s beti bachao slogan when campaigning in UP?

The post Delhi HC grants bail pending appeal to Unnao rape convict Kuldeep Singh Sengar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This questionable decision was made during a meeting of the Chaudhary community held last Sunday in Gazipur village, Jalore district, chaired by Sujnaram Chaudhary, the president of the 14 pattis (subdivisions). The meeting was chaired by community president Sujanaram Chaudhary, with elders deliberating on mobile phone usage within families. The resolution was formally read out by Panch Himmataram and proposed by Devaram Karnol, community members said. The controversial “ban”, it is reported, will be enforced in villages including Gajipura, Pavli, Kalra, Manojia Vas, Rajikawas, Datlawas, Rajpura, Kodi, Sidrodi, Alri, Ropsi, Khanadeval, Savidhar, Hathmi ki Dhani of Bhinmal, and Khanpur, all of which fall within the Patti region of Jalore district.

It was while speaking to PTI, that Chaudhary said that Panch Himmtaram announced the decision. According to Himmtaram, after discussions among panch members and community members, it was decided that daughters-in-law and young women would exclusively use keypad phones for calling.

Besides this, school-going girls who need mobile phones for their studies may use them only at home. They are not allowed to take mobile phones to weddings, social events, or even to a neighbour’s house, Chaudhary further explained, Chaudhary mentioned further. No restrictions have been reportedly placed on boys going to school, however!

When he was questioned on the opposition regarding the panchayat’s decision, Chaudhary clarified that this measure was taken because children often use the mobile phones of women in their households, which may negatively affect their eyesight. He noted that some women give their phones to children to keep them distracted, allowing them to focus on their daily chores.

The New Indian Express reported how Jalore has witnessed similar controversial community diktats in the past. Last year, 2024, local elders ordered the social boycott of two families after a young couple entered into a love marriage, imposing a fine of ₹12 lakh for their re-entry into the community. The couple later approached the Bhinmal police, following which police intervened and facilitated a compromise with most elders, though a few continued to justify the boycott.

June 2025, Caste panchayat enforces social boycott of 55 families in Jalore

In another similar incident in June, a caste panchayat in Jalore announced a social boycott of 55 families over a long-standing dispute related to temple land between two factions of the same extended family. The diktat barred community members from attending weddings, social functions, and even funerals of the affected families. The panchayat also warned that anyone who raised objections would face excommunication and monetary penalties. A complaint in connection with the matter was subsequently lodged at the Bagra police station.

Related:

Telangana High Court affirms right of Akbhari Shia Women to conduct religious activities in Hyderabad’s Ibadat Khana

A right half won, evolution of women’s right to property under the Hindu Succession Act

Women, married or unmarried have the right to safe & legal abortion: SC

The post Rajasthan panchayat in Jalore district bans camera phones for daughters-in-law appeared first on SabrangIndia.