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.

Signatories to the Appeal include: senior activists, academics, scientists of Telangana such as Prof. Haragopal, Dr. K Babu Rao, Prof K. Laxminarayana; human rights activists Jeevan Kumar, Dr. Tirupathaiah, Vasantha Lakshmi; feminist activists V. Sandhya, V Rukmini Rao, S. Ashalatha, K. Sajaya, Bhanumathi, Meera Sanghamitra; social activists Venkat Reddy, Kanneganti Ravi, P. Shankar, Saraswati Kavula, Maria Tabassum, Shaikh Salauddin, Sreeharsha, Lateef Khan, Sowmya Kidambi; climate justice activists Ruchit Asha Kamal, Nikita Naidu, Deeksha; law researchers Akhil Surya, Raja Chandra etc.

The Abhaya Hastam Assembly Elections Manifesto (2023) of TPCC made multiple assurances including establishment of a welfare board and provision of social security for unorganised workers, a specific welfare board for Hamali workers, health cards to Hamali workers, establishment of a ‘Hamali Nagar’ in every mandal centre, where houses would be allocated to the workers. The letter describes the many challenges and exploitation faced by Hamali workers, across different godowns and markets. The activists said that State is bound to protect rights, dignity and livelihoods of all workers – whether belonging to Telangana or coming from other states, in search of livelihoods.

The communication also pointed out that 2026 marks 50 years of enactment of the Telangana Mutta, Jattu, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1976 and Rules, 1977 which provide the legal framework for setting up institutional mechanisms and upholding rights of the Hamali workers. The said Act and Rules mandate the state government to establish a Board (Section 6) as well as an Advisory Committee (Section 14) representing employers, unprotected workers, members of the legislature and the Government.  Effective implementation of the Act would be the least that can be done to secure the rights and interests of Hamali workers.

The signatories also appreciated that last week, Minister Dr. Dansari Anasuya (Seethakka), has assured them that the issue will be taken up with the Chief Minister, for establishment of Hamali Welfare Board when she addressed the Hamali Maha Garjana at Hanmakonda, a historic gathering of 7,000 Hamali workers from 30 districts of the state.

The signatories hoped the CM would immediately issue directions for constitution of a Statutory Welfare Board and Advisory Committee for Hamali Workers, along with necessary budgetary allocations and ensure fair wages and payments, PF, ESI, health rights and housing. The activists also pointed out statutory welfare boards and schemes in Kerala and Maharashtra for Hamali workers and urged that Telangana also must consider such measures at the state and district level.

The letter petition was jointly initiated by the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) and Telangana People’s Joint Action Committee (TP-JAC), in solidarity with the Telangana Hamali Workers Union (THWU).

Related:

February 12: Workers and Farmers Forge a Historic Axis of Resistance Across India

Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra

As 30 crore workers, farmers join July 9 strike against govt.’s policies, will there be media coverage of the shut down?

The post Telangana: Safeguard lakhs of Hamali workers, set by welfare board, citizens groups appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its statement, the DUJ said that the body is “outraged at the manhandling of UNI journalists by the Delhi Police on March 20, 2026. The Police entered the UNI newsrooms in large numbers and demanded that journalists peacefully working the night shift immediately leave the premises. They were told UNI was being evicted following a High Court Order. No Order was shown.

“When the surprised journalists asked for time to inform their management, many of them were manhandled. Women journalists too were physically pushed out as video footage reveals. No time was given for people to retrieve their personal papers and belongings. We severely condemn this arbitrary action.

UNI, the second oldest news agency in the country, has been severely mismanaged over the past decades.  It was the responsibility of the current management to inform employees of the High Court Order that came earlier in the day, anticipate the eviction and protect employees from harm. Regrettably, they did not do so.”

The DUJ statement issued on March 21 states that the prime land on which India’s oldest news agency stands has long been “eyed” by the powers that be and powerful corporate owned media organisations vying for both control and ownership. The statement has been issued by Sujata Madhok, President, SK Pande, Vice-President and AM Jigeesh, General Secretary.

“By cancelling the lease,” said the DUJ, the Union Government has dealt a death blow to the news agency by cancelling the lease.

In the past the Government tried to change the lease conditions and bring in other media players, promising them a share in a new building to be constructed on the plot. Earlier UNI managements challenged these orders in court. Meanwhile, the agency struggled financially, especially after the government withdrew subscriptions for Prasar Bharati and other government bodies. UNI employees suffered the consequences, with years of delayed salaries and other dues.

Years of struggle in and outside courts by employees, including retirees and those who had left UNI, the agency was declared bankrupt by the National Company Law Tribunal. It was then taken over by The Statesman who paid a small percentage of their dues to the employees.

The DUJ has called upon The Statesman management to fulfil its responsibilities, continue to run the agency and pay the journalists and other employees their full dues.

Meanwhile, the Editors Guild of India (EGI) strongly condemns the use of excessive force, as well as the undue haste shown in implementing a High Court order cancelling the allotment of land on which the premises of United News of India, one of India’s oldest independent news agencies, was situated, and allowing the Land and Development Office of the Union Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry to re-take possession of the land.

The Guild statement also states that, “While the Guild does not question the need to implement the High Court’s order, what is disturbing is the lack of due process, and the manifestly excessive display of force by the authorities in executing the Court’s directions. As per reports, the order was pronounced in Court at around 1.30 PM on Friday, March 20, 2026.”

“Within hours, and even before the order was made available on the Court’s website, a force of hundreds of police and paramilitary personnel had arrived at the UNI’s premises. Journalists, including female staff, were forcibly evicted in the midst of carrying out their duties. The journalists have asserted that no notice was shown to them, and that the authorities refused to allow time for the UNI management to arrive, or even allow journalists to collect their personal effects before the premises were sealed. They have also alleged that some staff, including some women journalists, were manhandled in the process, a charge which the Delhi Police have denied.

The alacrity with which the authorities reacted, as well as the overwhelming display of force, sends a chilling message to the media. The action has not only halted the dissemination of news to UNI’s subscribers, but has also cast a shadow over the future of the organisation, and the careers of hundreds of journalists.” The EGI further has urged the authorities to exercise greater restraint, and desist from actions which restrict the freedom of media to operate and carry out its functions in a democracy. The EGI statement has been issued by Sanjay Kapoor, President and Raghavan Srinivasan, the Treasurer.

Meanwhile on the same date, March 21, the Mumbai Press Club has strongly condemned the sealing of the office of United News of India (UNI) in Delhi, an action that has caused deep concern across the media fraternity.

The Mumbai Press Club statement released on ‘X’ states that, “Reports of staff being forcibly evicted without being allowed to collect their personal belongings, the alleged manhandling of female journalists, and misconduct by certain Delhi Police personnel—including claims of intoxication while on duty—are extremely disturbing. The reported abuse of individuals by police personnel and lawyers further reflects a serious breakdown of professional conduct and accountability. Such actions not only undermine the dignity and safety of journalists but also raise serious concerns about press freedom and the ability of media institutions to function without fear or intimidation.”

The Mumbai PC has “urged the authorities to ensure a prompt, impartial, and transparent inquiry into the incident, and to fix accountability for any excesses or misconduct. It is equally important to take immediate steps to restore confidence within the journalistic community and safeguard the rights and independence of the press,” says the Mumbai Press Club. Samar Khadas is currently President and Mayuresh Ganapatye the Secretary of the PC.

Related:

UP: 14-Year-Old Dalit Content Creator Ashwamit Gautam faces arrest, FIR over strong dissenting social media videos

J & K: Attempt to muzzle FoE, Media? Police summons to media, journalists

Pervasive fear, surveillance of media, spiral of anti-India sentiment in Kashmir: CCG

The post Delhi, Mumbai: Media organisations sharply criticise UNI eviction appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Members of National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR – Gujarat) – a pan Indian collective of progressive lawyers and law professionals and the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM Gujarat), along with many civil society organizations of the state have strongly objected to the proposed amendments to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006, notified on February 20, 2026. The groups have urged the State Government to withdraw the draft, citing serious concerns over constitutionality, privacy, and individual freedoms.

In a detailed letter of objections submitted to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Health and Family Welfare Department, these organizations have stated that the proposed amendments introduce provisions requiring submission of Aadhaar details, mandatory disclosure of whether parents have been informed, and the sharing of parents’ contact information. Further, authorities would be required to notify parents of a marriage application and impose a 30-day waiting period before registration.

According to the both organisations, these provisions are unconstitutional and violate fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy, personal liberty, and individual autonomy. They argue that the amendments go beyond the scope of the parent legislation and impose unwarranted state intrusion into personal decisions of consenting adults.

A key concern raised is the mandatory parental intimation, which undermines the legally recognised right of adults to marry a person of their choice without interference. The groups warn that such provisions could expose couples—especially those in inter-caste, interfaith, or socially sensitive relationships—to harassment, violence, and even “honour-based” crimes. The autonomy granted to adult citizens to make marriages of choice has been a factor of Indian secular life since the enactment of the Special Marriages Act of 1954.

The amendments are also being criticised for failing the proportionality test laid down by the Supreme Court in privacy jurisprudence, as they lack clear necessity, legal backing, and a rational connection to their stated objective. Civil society groups noted that there is no empirical evidence justifying such sweeping measures.

Additionally, the proposal is seen as potentially deepening caste and religious divisions, discouraging inter-community marriages, and enabling misuse of laws such as the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act through false complaints by disapproving family members.

The impact on women’s autonomy and LGBTQIA+ individuals has been highlighted as particularly concerning. The requirement of parental involvement could reinforce patriarchal control over women’s choices and further endanger queer and transgender individuals who often face familial violence and coercion.

The groups have also expressed alarm over proposals for digitized and publicly accessible marriage records, warning that such measures could lead to misuse of personal information and threaten individuals’ safety and dignity.

In conclusion, the organisations stated that instead of addressing genuine concerns, the amendments risk discouraging marriage registration altogether, thereby undermining the very purpose of the law.

NAJAR (Gujarat) and NAPM (Gujarat) –in a joint statement issued –have both called for the immediate withdrawal of the draft amendments and urged the government to uphold constitutional values, individual freedoms, and the right to dignity and choice.

The actual communication may be read below:

To,                                                                                                       Dated: March 19, 2026

The Additional Chief Secretary,

Government of Gujarat,

Health and Family Welfare Department,

New Sachivalaya,

Gandhinagar – 382010

Subject: Objections to the Proposed Draft Amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006  (Notification dated February 20,  2026) and Demand for Withdrawal of Proposed Draft

Sir/Ma’am,

We, individuals, organizations and collectives associated with the National Alliance for People’s Movements Gujarat and National Alliance for Justice, Accountability, and Rights, Gujarat, would like to convey our grave worries and formal objections to the proposed amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006 announced by the government of the state of Gujarat vide notification No. GHY/02/HFWD/102026/5/B1 dated 20.02.2026.

The way in which the proposed amendment aims to achieve its supposed intention (according to media statements issued by the Home Minister) of cracking down on those men who misrepresent their identities to women and fraudulently marry them appears to be severely misguided and is likely to cause more damage to the personal liberties of a large segment of the state as well as a long term disintegration of the society along religious and caste lines. The new rules are in clear contravention of the Articles 19, 21 and 51A (e) of the Indian Constitution and therefore unconstitutional. With respect to this, we the undersigned, demand withdrawal of the proposed draft amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006.

We hereby submit the following key rule-wise objections:

1. Objection against insertion of Rule 4 (3)(b)

Rule 4(3) prescribes for the mandatory accompanied documents with the memorandum, which already included identity establishing documents in 4(3)(a) and age verifying document as per 4(3)(c). There is thus no requirement of insertion of 4(3)(b) for submission of Aadhaar card. The courts [1]have time and again held that citizens cannot be denied basic services/entitlements/benefits for mere refusal to submit Aadhaar number. Further, it acts as an invasion of privacy even more so witnesses to the marriage. 

2. Objection against insertion of Rule 4 (5)

Through the insertion of Rule 4 (5), a declaration by both parties is required stating if their parents, have or have not been informed of the marriage, which is categorically submitted to be baseless, unconstitutional and beyond the scope of rule-making power of the state.

• At the outset, the power to make rules by the State Government in Section 21 of the parent act in particular, specifically matters described in Section 21(2)(a) to (f); the requirement of information to parents does not fall under the ambit of the same.
• The Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006, The Special Marriages Act, nor the personal laws from The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, and The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, there exists no requirement for the parties to marriage to inform/show consent/witness of their parents. In fact in Hindu Marriages Act, 1955, in 1978 amendment the farthest resemblance to guardians consent was also removed.

3. Objection against insertion of Rule 4(6)

Unequivocally, the insertion of this proposed sub-rule requiring both parties to submit not only the name of their parents, but their ordinary place of residence as well as mobile number- is fundamentally capricious, manifestly arbitrary and in violation of Fundamental Rights under Art 14 and 21. While details of parents of the parties is already submitted in the Memorandum of Marriage (as expanded in the Schedule under Section 5) the requirement of mobile number violates the ‘proportionality test’ for state intrusion to privacy rights. Further, it exceeds the scope of the parent act. The preamble of 2006 Act focuses on registration for evidence, not notification for parental oversight.

4. Objection against insertion of Rule 4 (7)

The proposed rule provides for Assistant Registrar to ‘expeditiously’ within 10 days intimate the parents of the parties about the memorandum submitted by the parties to the marriage and to their concerned Registrar in that jurisdiction as well. The amendment read with Rule 4(6) is patently illegal exercise of delegated legislative power by the state.

1. The parent Act does not empower the state to change a procedural statute of an already solemnized marriage. Even though registration has been mandatory, mere non-registration cannot change the legal status of a solemnized marriage. The proposed amendment in the Rule 4(7) read with Section 8 of the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 and conditions laid down for a valid marriage in the Special Marriages Act, nor the personal laws can lead to unnecessary objections being raised by the family and other parties leading to delay in registration and harassment of parties to marriage.
2. The requirement to ‘send intimation to the parents expeditiously’ is a blatant discrimination against adults choosing their partners. Multiple judicial pronouncements have reaffirmed the right to marry as an integral part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. As the Supreme Court held in 2021[2]:-
   “We are fortified in our view by earlier judicial pronouncements of this Court clearly elucidating that the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock and that their consent has to be piously given primacy. It is in that context it was further observed that the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice. Such a right or choice is not is not expected to succumb to the concept of “class honour” or “group thinking”.
3. It is submitted that this proposal violates the intrinsic right to privacy of individuals, In Puttaswamy, [3]the Supreme Court held that any state restriction on privacy must satisfy the tripartite test of legality, necessity and proportionality. The proposed rule-making power fails on all three counts: it lacks legality by infringing upon the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 without statutory authority; it fails to substantiate the necessity of piercing established matrimonial autonomy or settled questions of law; and it is not proportional to the alleged objective of preventing “forced conversions” which remains a speculative concern that has not been statistically substantiated by the State to justify such a sweeping and coercive intrusion.

5. Objection against insertion of Rule 4(8)

The proposed rule 4(8) provides for registration of marriage after thirty dates from receipt of memorandum; upon being satisfied’ of compliance with sub-rules (1) to (7).

• Firstly, the proposed rule fails to provide any determining principle or purpose for this moratorium period of 30 days. While the underlying requirement of parental intimation is itself unconstitutional as substantantiated above, the rules remain silent on the consequences of this notice mentioned in Rule 4(7), and in event of no prescribed procedure merely serves as a baseless procedural hurdle with no nexus with marriage registration.
• Secondly, the proposed insertion is not in conformity with the Section 8 of the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006. It is important to remember that Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 is the parent act under which the rules are framed that are proposed to be Section 8 of the Act provides for the power to refuse the registration of marriage. The said section provides for only three specific circumstances in which the registration may be refused. Which is (a) marriage is not performed in accordance with the personal law of the parties, (b) the identity of the parties, or the witness or the priest is not established beyond reasonable doubt or (c) the documents tendered do not prove the marital status of the parties. When the scope of the refusal of the registration of the marriage is circumscribed by the parent legislation, the rules made thereunder cannot go beyond the same.

Additional suggestions/comments: 

Unclear Objectives

At the very outset, the prima facie un-tenability of the amendments lies in the absence of any clear and coherent objectives for their introduction. Any amendment to an existing law or rules should have nexus with a legitimate state goal in public interest. The stated intention at the time of the tabling the draft of new rules in the Vidhan Sabha are rather vague in nature and are also not substantiated by any empirical evidence either. The proposed amendments do not seem to fill any legal laps previously left in the light of Sections 4 and 5 of both the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 which lay out the conditions of a valid marriage per the respective legislations.

Threat to Personal Liberties

The new provision whereby both sets of parents of a couple shall be informed upon their attempt to register a marriage is antithetical to the principle of an individual’s right to choose. The very reason that we have a minimum age for marriage is the underlying belief that an adult has both the right and the capacity to choose their partner.

The practice of “honour killings” of inter-caste or interreligious couples has seen a sharp increase in India as per the data of the National Crime Records Bureau released in 2025, which is itself believed to underestimation. Necessitating the involvement of the parents in the process of marriage registration can directly put people’s lives at risk. The violence is often not only limited to the couple itself, but can engulf two communities in a bitter and long-term conflict that ends up destroying several lives.

Promotion of Casteism & Religious Divisions

Caste and religious lines continue to divide our country. While the marked increase in the beneficiaries of the ‘Dr. Savitaben Ambedkar Inter-Caste Marriage Assistance Scheme’ (being the most relevant indiactor of inter-caste marriage trends in Gujarat) is a positive sign, the overwhelming majority of marital relations in our society are endogamous in nature. The general trend in this regard suggests that the younger generation i.e. those who are going to marry in the foreseeable future are relatively more open to the idea of inter-caste and interreligious marriage. Informing the parents of the marrying parties effectively creates an obstruction only for those parties whose parents would not agree to the marriage on religious or caste lines.

A form of retaliation by the parents opposed to the registration of such marriages may be by filing a false case under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2001. Section 3A of the Act empowers a relative of the “aggrieved person” to file a complaint of attempt to convert into a religion, and Section 6A of the Act puts the burden of proof on the accused to disprove the presence of fraud, coercion or allurement, failing which the accused shall have to face criminal charges. The additional requirement of intimation to parents of individuals may lead to criminalization of bonafide marital relationships in case the parents disapprove their marriage by way of criminal complaint under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act – effecting inter-faith marriages between two consenting adults.

Women’s Autonomy

Empowering parents to have a say in the marital decisions of woman, or in many instances being the decision maker on the woman’s behalf has been the primary way through which the power structures of caste and religion are preserved, as has been elucidated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his seminal Castes in India. Provisions like the one being advanced by the government of Gujarat tend to control the lives and choices of women at a disproportionately higher rate than men. In the case of Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2018), also known as the Hadiya case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India strongly asserted the right of a person to marry someone of their choice, even if their parents are explicitly against the union. The then Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra stated in his judgement:

“In the case at hand, the father in his own stand and perception may feel that there has been enormous transgression of his right to protect the interest of his daughter but his view point or position cannot be allowed to curtail the fundamental rights of his daughter who, out of her own volition, married the appellant.”

Further, while marriage registration has itself become necessary, the mere lack of registration itself does not annul the marriage. If a law like this which makes marriage registration difficult and potentially even life-threatening, many people may simply opt to not register their marriages, which can further lead to a rise in the many of the original problems that the new rules aim to solve.

Public Digital Record of Marriages

The proposal of digitizing publicly accessible marriage record being is another dangerous idea that can be used against bonafide couples/spouses. The name of a spouse is a kind of information that should not be available at the click of a button without the person’s knowledge or consent, as it can be easily used in myriad ways to target someone, from coercion to revenge. When, for example, a case is instituted in the family court, the names of the parties are redacted for the sake of privacy, recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution by the It is therefore the right to every citizen to marry the person of their choice in as much secrecy as they may choose. Therefore, this proposed change also violates the ‘proportionality test’ laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2021).

LGBTQIA+ Community

Indian society has made significant strides towards accepting and embracing relationships between same-sex and transgender persons. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) did not grant marriage equality to the LGBTQIA+ community, it affirmed their right to choose their partners and cohabitate without discrimination or threat of violence. The Court also validated the right of transgender individuals who have affirmed their binary gender upon transition to marry another binary-gendered person. However, the reality is such that many queer and transgender couples have no choice but to keep their union a secret even as they are subjected to routinized violence and manipulation by their families to enter into a heterosexual union. As a result, they are forced out of their homes and are rendered unhoused because of the discrimination and the threats their own families pose to their life and safety. In many such situations of estrangement, couples are tracked down with the aid of the police, and eventually coerced into heterosexual marriages.

The proposed Amendment to the Gujarat Registration of Marriage Rules makes life even more difficult for these LGBTQIA+ individuals and couples who wish to live together away from their families, and particularly those couples involving transgender persons who enter into a heterosexual marriage, as it mandates the consent of their families to register the solemnized union, and makes them vulnerable to public reprisal at best and social boycott at worst.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the proposed amendments to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006, violate the fundamental rights of individuals and are manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional as it seeks to undermine individual choice and dignity. Contrary to the objectives, this may in fact lead to individuals avoiding legal registration of marriage itself therefore setting us back to the core issue. 

In light of the above, we the undersigned citizens, strongly and emphatically suggest that the proposed amendment be withdrawn. 

Submitted by:

National Alliance for People’s Movements (Gujarat)

National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights (Gujarat)

Below are the names of individuals from Gujarat, who have endorsed the above letter:

1. Smita Pandya, Social Activist, Ahmedabad
2. Meenakshi Joshi, Social- Political Activist, Ahmedabad
3. Deepak Solanki, Samarpan organization & PUCL, Ahmedabad
4. Raghavan Rangarajan, Professor, Ahmedabad
5. Jimmy C. Dabhi, Ph.d, Centre for Culture and Development, Vadodara
6. Ayesha Khan, Sanat Mehta Charitable Trust, Vadodara
7. Indira Hirway, Prof of economics, Ahmedabad
8. Neha Shah, Academic, Ahmedabad
9. Sheba George, Social Activist, Ahmedabad
10. Nirjhari Sinha, Jan Sangharsh Manch, Ahmedabad
11. Nita Mahadev, Social worker, Ahmedabad
12. Cedric Prakash, Human Rights Activist, Ahmedabad
13. Bilal Kagzi, Advocate, Surat
14. Swati Goswami, Communications Consultant, Ahmedabad
15. Sejal Dand, Feminist Activist, Ahmedabad
16. Navdeep Mathur, Faculty, Ahmedabad
17. Priyam Vadaliya, Researcher and Designer, Ahmedabad
18. Rohit Prajapati, Environment Activist, Gujarat
19. Kamal Thakar, Social worker, Vadodara
20. Swati Desai, Activist, Gujarat
21. Anand Mazgaonkar, Activist, Gujarat
22. Rohit Chauhan, Saurashtra Dalit Sangathan, Junagadh
23. Dev Desai, Human Rights activist, Gujarat
24. Heman Oza, Researcher, Ahmedabad
25. Khairunnisha pathan, Social activist, Ahmedabad
26. Gova Rathod, Saurashtra Dalit Sangathan and NAPM, Gujarat
27. Satya Oza, PhD Candidate, Ahmedabad
28. Sejal Dand, Feminist Activist, Ahmedabad
29. Prasad Chacko, National Secretary, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Gujarat
30. Disha, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Surat
31. Harsh Kinger, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Vadodara
32. Harsh Raval, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
33. Hozefa Ujjaini, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
34. Subodh Kumud, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
35. Winona D’souza, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
36. Rakesh Vaghela, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad
37. Khush V., National Alliance for People’s Struggle (Urban Struggles Forum), Gujarat
38. Mirkhan Makrani, Peace and Justice, Himatnagar
39. Rafi Malek, Ahmedabad
40. Bhargav Oza, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, Ahmedabad

[1] Justice KS Puttuswamy v Union of India, AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 4161, Ganpat Dharma Mengal 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13720

[2] Laxmibai Chandaragi B vs. State of Karnataka, (2021) 3 SCC 360

[3] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2021

Related

Parental consent for marriage? Gujarat’s curious political consensus

The post Proposed Amendments to Gujarat Marriage Registration Rules Unconstitutional: NAJAR, NAPM 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.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by a journalist, Geeta Seshu along with the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), inter alia seeking direction or declaration quashing and setting aside Sections 7, 17(2)(a), 19(3) 24, 36, 44(2)(a), and 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to the extent challenged herein, as being unconstitutional, void and inoperative, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi issued notice and posted the case for hearing with the earlier petitions, on March 23. Senior Advocate Indira Jaisingh appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.

Interesting discussions took place at the time of the hearing as reported. While deliberations were on, the Bench remarked, “One is the state collecting data, and there is another matter before us. We hope that it will proceed and eventually we will decide on merits. Where our entire data of the citizens—not only of one nation, maybe a substantial part of the globe—is concerned. It is a global issue. A global issue going into the very big private entities. And that’s where the question of data sovereignty arises…Data is becoming the real, true wealth as of today.”

Indira Jaisingh then responded, “There are provisions in this Act, My Lord, which enable them to access data from other countries also. Therefore, data sovereignty issues also arise. My Lord, we are just hoping that this court will give us some guidance on all these issues.”

The Court said, “This is a very interesting point. And in any case, not only interesting, it’s an imminently required issue and one which deserves to be prioritised and determined.”

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioners, informed the Supreme Court that the new Data Protection Act is being challenged through multiple petitions, each focusing on different facets of the statute. A primary concern raised was the removal of the “public interest” exception, which previously existed under the RTI Act. Jaising argued that this deletion severely hampers investigative journalism, as reporters may no longer be able to access data concerning public servants or matters of public importance, even when such information is vital for transparency.

Jaisingh submitted, “Your Lordships have issued notice in three previous petitions challenging analogous provisions of this Act. However, the emphasis of each of the petitions is slightly different from the other. So I thought… the statute itself is new, because it talks of data protection for the first time in the country…I may briefly just tell you: one is the journalistic exception. Public interest has been deleted from the RTI Act and also from the Data Protection Act. So, therefore, a journalist cannot access data which is in the public interest. My Lord, we concede that we can’t have personal data. A journalist need not have personal data, but if it’s in the public interest—for example, if you’re writing about a public servant, etc.”

Chief Justice Kant said, “Ultimately, the interesting question that will have to be determined is: what is public data and what is personal data?”

Senior Advocate Jaisingh replied, “Yes, My Lord, that’s a critical question. The Act does not clarify that. Therefore, My Lord, it will require judicial interpretation. And there is no definition of what is information and what is personal.”

“One interesting point can be whether data with respect to a person, so long as he holds a public office, can be termed as personal data or can it be termed as private data…Madam, at the time of hearing, you will have to suggest different hypothetical situations. And then, probably, we will be able to have a better analysis,” Justice Kant remarked.

She submitted, “not only hypothetical, but we can take cases that have actually gone to court under the RTI Act, where either the information has been allowed or disallowed, because these will be analogous provisions. My Lord, in the RTI Act, there was an exception saying you can ask for information which is in the public interest. That has been deleted from the Data Protection Act. Actually, that’s what’s causing the trouble. Otherwise, there would be no other problem. Then, My Lord, the second is that the state has a right to call for any information. Of course, there are certain categories and sovereignty of the country, but they are overbroad. For example, they can call for information which is related to public order. Now, public order, as we all know, is a very broad category.”

The Court observed that the core of the matter lies in distinguishing between public and personal data. He questioned whether information regarding an individual holding public office could truly be classified as “private.” The Bench also stressed the need for a balanced approach, requesting that the petitioners suggest specific measures to protect individual privacy without compromising the right to information. Justice Kant noted that neither right should act as an impediment to the effective exercise of the other.

Justice Kant said, “But also, Madam, we will request you to also suggest the measures to protect the individuals also. In a given case, if there are sweeping provisions permitting to have the complete information and where the right to privacy and this conflict comes, then how to protect some individuals also?…So, what can be the measures which can be taken without affecting the right to have this information?”

Singh responded, “Now, especially now, My Lord, we have a right to privacy in this country. So that right also has to be protected. That balancing measure—yes, that is what you [mean]—between the right to privacy and the right to public information.”

Chief Justice Surya Kant observed, “None of the rights should compromise with the other, and none of the rights should become an impediment in the effectivity of the right.”

The discussion also touched upon the doctrine of proportionality and the “overbroad” nature of the Act’s provisions. Jaising highlighted concerns regarding state surveillance, noting that the government has exempted itself from several provisions of the Act. Additionally, she pointed out the removal of the right to compensation for individuals whose data is illegally accessed—a right that existed under the previous IT Act—noting that any penalties would now be directed to the Data Protection Board rather than the victim.

Senior Advocate Jaisingh further submitted, “The doctrine of proportionality, over breadth—all those issues will arise for consideration by the court. And My Lord, last but not the least, the state exempts itself from the provisions of this Act. So, therefore, we’ll have to see that they can collect any data about us. There is a certain fear of surveillance also, which emerges from the reading of the provisions of this Act. So we are hoping that this honourable court will give some direction, some enlightenment on these issues. These will be the four issues, My Lord: whether there is a danger of surveillance, whether the state can exempt itself, and whether journalists can write about it.”

She further said, “You will have to look at actually all the provisions of the Act. My Lord, one more issue: earlier under the IT Act, we had a right to get compensation if our data was illegally accessed. Now they’ve deleted that right to compensation if data is illegally accessed. And they’ve said the compensation, if any, will go to the state. It will go to the Board. It will go to the Data Protection [Board].”

The Court acknowledged the global significance of the issue, describing data as the “true wealth” of the modern era. Justice Kant noted that the case involves broader questions of data sovereignty, especially concerning large private entities and the cross-border access of citizen data. Recognizing the urgency and the “imminently required” nature of the judicial interpretation of these laws, the Court issued notice, returnable on March 23rd, to be heard alongside related petitions.

The Petitioners who have filed this petition, have, according to Verdictum, which prayed for the following reliefs, “a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or declaration quashing and setting aside Sections 7, 17(2)(a), 19(3) 24, 36, 44(2)(a), and 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to the extent challenged herein, as being unconstitutional, void and inoperative, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India…b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Rules 5, 6, 17, 18, 21 and 23, and the Second Schedule, Fifth Schedule, Sixth Schedule and Seventh Schedule of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, to the extent challenged herein, as being unconstitutional, void and inoperative, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India.”

Further, it was also prayed, “c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 17(2) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it empowers the Central Government to exempt any of its instrumentalities from the application of the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025…d) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside the Second Schedule of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.”

The Plea also sought a direction for quashing and setting aside Section 44 (2) (a) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it extinguishes the right of affected persons to seek compensation or civil remedy for unlawful processing of personal data and/or data breach and for setting aside Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 insofar as it dilutes the right to information of the citizens of India.

“Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 19(3) and Section 24 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 read with Rules 17, 18 and 21 and the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, insofar as they relate to the constitution, appointment, service conditions and functioning of the Data Protection Board of India…Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration directing the Respondent No. 1 to frame a constitutionally 103 compliant mechanism for appointment, tenure and service conditions of the Data Protection Board of India, ensuring its independence from executive control”, it further prayed.

The petition has also sought the setting aside Section 36 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 read with Rule 23 and the Serial No. 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 and sought directions to Union of India to incorporate and notify a specific and proportionate exemption under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 for processing of personal data for journalistic, editorial, investigative and public interest reporting purposes, including protection of journalistic sources. Alternatively, issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 7 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it fails to provide an exemption for processing of personal data for journalistic purposes.

The Court had previously issued notice in the plea seeking the validity of the DPDP Act, 2023, as unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The digital news platform The Reporters’ Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi approached the Supreme Court of India to challenge key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. Right to information activist Venkatesh Nayak has also challenged some provisions of the DPDP Act, 2023.

Related:

Serious flaws in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act

In Garb of Data Protection Bill, Centre Attacking RTI, Allege Information Commissioners

A surveillance regime that violates both Privacy & Right to Life: Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2002

Digital Personal Data Protection Bill seeks to amend RTI Act to bar disclosure of personal information

The post Data is real, true wealth: SC issues notice in yet another plea challenging DPDP Act; highlights privacy concerns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Excerpts from the India section of the 2026 Annual Report:

“In 2025, religious freedom conditions in India continued to deteriorate as the government introduced and enforced new legislation targeting religious minority communities and their houses of worship. Several states undertook efforts to introduce or strengthen anti-conversion laws to include harsher prison sentences. Indian authorities also facilitated widespread detention and illegal expulsion of citizens and religious refugees and tolerated vigilante attacks against religious minority communities.

“Throughout the year, Hindu nationalist mobs across several states harassed, incited, and instigated violence against Muslims and Christians with impunity. In March, violence erupted in Maharashtra after a hard-line Hindu nationalist group, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), called for the removal of the tomb of Aurangzeb, a 17th-century Mughal ruler. Subsequent riots injured dozens of people and resulted in a curfew, fuelled by rumours from Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) officials that Qur’ans were desecrated in VHP-led protests. In June, a Hindu nationalist mob attacked 20 Christian families in Odisha after they refused to convert to Hinduism. The attacks, which did not prompt police intervention, left eight people injured and hospitalised.

“In April, three gunmen attacked a group of predominantly Hindu tourists in the Muslim-majority territory of Kashmir, killing 26 people. The perpetrators reportedly asked the victims to recite the Kalma, an Islamic verse, and killed those who were unable to do so. The attack sparked a five-day conflict between India and Pakistan and intensified anti-Muslim sentiment in India, including targeted attacks. Muslims were reportedly killed in Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh in alleged hate crimes following the attack.

“In Uttar Pradesh, self-professed members of a Hindu nationalist group reportedly shot and killed a Muslim restaurant worker, vowing to avenge those killed in the Kashmir attack. The Indian government also seized the aftermath of the attack to justify deportations of religious minorities it considers “illegal” migrants.

“In May, Indian authorities detained 40 Rohingya refugees, including 15 Christians, all of whom were transported into inter-national waters near the coast of Burma and forced to swim to the Burmese shore with nothing more than life vests. In July, Indian authorities expelled hundreds of Bengali-speaking Muslims from Assam to Bangladesh despite being Indian citizens. Officials from the ruling BJP accused those expelled of being Muslim “infiltrators” from Bangladesh, threatening India’s national identity. To further facilitate the crackdown in alleged “illegal migration,” the government passed a new set of rules and orders for the Foreigners Act in September.

“The order expands the authority of Foreigner Tribunals to issue arrest warrants and send those suspected of being “foreigners” to holding centres without due process.

Throughout the year, the government also continued to target houses of worship to bring them under state control.

“In May, India’s Parliament passed the Waqf Bill, which adds non-Muslims to the boards that manage Waqf land endowments that are traditionally staffed by Muslims. These endowments include religious sites, such as mosques, seminaries, and graveyards. In response to the bill, deadly protests erupted in the state of West Bengal, leaving three people dead. In September, the Supreme Court suspended key provisions of the bill, including one in which the government can decide whether a disputed property is Waqf or not. The court further limited the number of non-Muslim members of the federal board to four. The same month, Uttarakhand’s legislative assembly passed the State Authority for Minority Education (USAME) Act, which dissolves the Madrasa Board and brings madrasas and other educational institutions for Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians under state control.

The USCIRF has made the following recommendations to the US government:

• Designate India as a “country of particular concern,” or CPC, for engaging in and tolerating systematic, ongoing, and egregious religious freedom violations, as defined by the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA);
• Press India to allow US government entities such as USCIRF and the U.S. Department of State to conduct in-country assessments of religious freedom conditions;
• Impose targeted sanctions on individuals and entities, such as India’s Research and Analysis Wing and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), for their responsibility and tolerance of severe violations of religious freedom by freezing those individuals’ or entities’ assets and/or barring their entry into the United States;
• Link future U.S. security assistance and bilateral trade policies with India to improvements in religious freedom; and
• Enforce Section 6 of the Arms Export Control Act to halt arms sales to India based on continued acts of intimidation and harassment against S. citizens and religious minorities.

The U.S. Congress should:

• Reintroduce and pass the Transnational Repression Reporting Act of 2024 to require the annual reporting of acts of transnational repression by the Indian government targeting religious minorities in the United

Related:

USCIRF signals alarm in India’s ‘Increased Transnational Targeting’ of religious minorities 

Umar Khalid’s incarceration: USCIRF Commissioner expresses concern over use of anti-terrorism laws to silence activists

USCIRF recommends India be designated Country of Particular Concern for third straight year!

The post Religious Freedom: How the USCIRF continues to designate India as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) announced that the decision was taken “after due consideration” and in order to create an atmosphere conducive to dialogue and stability in the Union Territory of Ladakh. The order revoking Wangchuk’s detention was issued with immediate effect, according to The Hindu.

In its official statement, the MHA said the government remains committed to “fostering an environment of peace, stability, and mutual trust in Ladakh so as to facilitate constructive and meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders.” The ministry also noted that Wangchuk had already served nearly half of the maximum detention period permitted under the NSA, which allows authorities to detain individuals without trial for up to 12 months, as per Hindustan Times.

The activist had been lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail in Rajasthan since September 26, 2025.

Arrest followed violent protests in Leh

Wangchuk’s detention followed widespread protests in Leh on September 24, 2025. The protests were for demanding greater political autonomy for Ladakh. Unfounded allegations about protests turning “violent” were made by government, claims contested by video footage and other evidence. However, when demonstrators clashed with security personnel, who were trying to stop protests, the police firing left four people dead and dozens injured.

Authorities subsequently accused Wangchuk of instigating the protests and described him as a “chief provocateur”. Two days after the violence, he was detained under the NSA and transferred from Ladakh to Rajasthan. This decision too has been widely criticised.

The detention by a widely acclaimed climate activist was after he, that is Sonam Wangchuk had announced a second hunger fast after the Centre had ‘broken its promise” to accord Leh/Ladhakh autonomy in 2020. Previously in March of 2024, Wangchuk had led a 21-day ‘climate fast’ that had drawn nationwide attention and support. His strong words of criticism against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister, Amit Shah had found an echo among millions.  This hunger fast too was for a demand of statehood for Ladakh and its inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

The September 2025 sudden detention was justified by the Modi government. The government maintained that the detention was necessary to restore order in a sensitive border region. During proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Centre argued that Wangchuk had attempted to incite younger protesters by invoking movements such as those in Nepal and Bangladesh and had spoken about an “Arab Spring-like” mobilisation.

The government also opposed his release on medical grounds, telling the court that claims about deteriorating health were “manufactured and synthetic”. According to the Union government, Wangchuk had undergone multiple medical examinations during his detention and was medically stable.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Legal challenge before the Supreme Court

Wangchuk’s detention was being challenged in the Supreme Court through a habeas corpus petition filed by his wife, Gitanjali Angmo under Article 32 of the Constitution. The case was being heard by a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the detention order relied on vague allegations, “stale FIRs”, and selective interpretations of Wangchuk’s speeches. He contended that authorities had relied on “borrowed, selective videos” that were inaccurately translated and did not demonstrate incitement to violence.

The Supreme Court had been scheduled to review video recordings of Wangchuk’s speeches during the Holi recess and was expected to consider the matter again on March 17. The government’s decision to revoke the detention has effectively pre-empted that hearing.

Angmo had also alleged that the detention was part of a wider pattern of pressure against Wangchuk and his institutions. According to her, authorities cancelled the lease of the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives Ladakh, initiated a CBI inquiry, withdrew permissions for his NGO, and issued income tax notices during the period surrounding his arrest,

Movement for constitutional safeguards in Ladakh

Wangchuk, a globally recognised education reformer and environmental innovator, has been one of the most prominent voices in Ladakh’s ongoing movement seeking constitutional protections for the region.

The agitation intensified after 2019, when the Union government abrogated Article 370 and reorganised the former state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir, with a legislature, and Ladakh, which remains directly governed by the Union government.

The movement led by the Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance has articulated a four-point agenda:

• Statehood for Ladakh
• Inclusion of the region under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution
• Creation of a Ladakh Public Service Commission
• Separate Lok Sabha seats for Leh and Kargil districts (Hindustan Times)

Leaders argue that Ladakh’s Union Territory status has left residents with little democratic representation, as administrative authority is largely exercised by centrally appointed bureaucrats.

Prior to the reorganisation, the region had four elected representatives in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. Since the bifurcation, Ladakh has no legislative assembly of its own.

Why Sixth Schedule status is being demanded

A key demand of the movement is the extension of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to Ladakh. The Sixth Schedule currently provides special administrative protections for tribal-majority regions in Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura.

Autonomous District Councils created under the schedule have powers to legislate on matters such as land, forests, agriculture, village administration and local governance.

Protestors argued that such protections are essential for Ladakh because more than 90 percent of its population belongs to Scheduled Tribes, and the region’s fragile ecology and distinct cultural identity require legal safeguards (The Indian Express).

While Ladakh already has two autonomous hill councils — the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (Leh) and the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (Kargil) — they are not backed by constitutional protections and have limited administrative powers.

Government officials have previously suggested that extending the Sixth Schedule beyond the Northeast may require a constitutional amendment, though the final decision rests with Parliament.

Reaction from Ladakh leaders

The revocation of Wangchuk’s detention has been welcomed by leaders associated with the Ladakh movement, though many emphasised that the broader political demands remain unresolved.

Sajjad Kargili, founder member of the Kargil Democratic Alliance, described the move as a “welcome step” and expressed hope that it would pave the way for renewed negotiations with the Union government, according to The Indian Express.

He said the region continues to seek statehood, Sixth Schedule protections, and institutional mechanisms such as a public service commission to address concerns about employment and governance.

Kargili also pointed out that Ladakh had previously enjoyed some degree of political representation within the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, whereas the present administrative arrangement offers residents limited avenues for democratic accountability.

Wangchuk’s response

Even while in detention, Wangchuk indicated that he would continue his activism but emphasised the need for dialogue. In a social media message earlier this week, he said the movement for Ladakh’s rights required “clarity, unity, and sincere dialogue”, as reported by The Hindu.

His wife also stated in an interview that Wangchuk intends to remain part of the broader campaign for constitutional safeguards but does not plan to pursue confrontation or agitation after his release.

At the same time, Angmo criticised the government’s claim that Ladakh had remained peaceful during Wangchuk’s detention. In a post on social media, she argued that the apparent calm was the result of curfews, internet shutdowns, and arrests of more than 100 youth following the September 2025 protests.

“The dreaded silence of the graveyard is not equal to the sacred peace of the temple that Ladakh was known for,” she wrote, as per Hindustan Times.

Related:

When Protest becomes a “Threat”: Inside the Supreme Court hearing on Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention

A victory for Ladakh’s voices: Sonam Wangchuk and Ladakhi activists break 16-day fast as union government agrees to renew talks on demands

Crushing voices: The detention of Sonam Wangchuk and supporters at Ladakh Bhawan

SG Mehta declares in Delhi High Court that Sonam Wangchuk has been freed from detention, media reports suggest police control endures

Ladakh’s fight for autonomy: Sonam Wangchuk leads foot march to Delhi

The post Union government revokes Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under NSA after nearly six months! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan directed that two armed guards be deployed 24 hours a day to protect Haseen Khan, the owner of the house where prayers were being offered. The Court further issued a strong warning that any incident of violence affecting Khan or his property would be presumed to have occurred at the instance of the State unless proven otherwise.

The order came while hearing a petition filed by Bareilly resident Tarik Khan, who approached the High Court alleging police interference with prayers held at a private residence in Mohammadganj village. The matter is now listed for final orders on March 23, and the Court has directed the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police of Bareilly to appear in person.

Allegations of police interference in private prayer

According to the petition, as per Livelaw, a group of Muslim residents had been offering namaz on the rooftop of a private house with the permission of the property owner, Haseen Khan. The petitioner claimed that on January 16, police personnel allegedly intervened and stopped the prayers, despite the fact that they were being conducted within private premises.

Khan further alleged before the Court that he was picked up from his home by police officials while offering namaz, challenged, and compelled to place his thumb impression on blank documents without being informed of their contents. He also told the Court that certain individuals had threatened demolition of his property if he did not testify in a particular manner.

These allegations prompted the filing of a contempt petition against the state authorities, arguing that the actions of the administration were in violation of an earlier High Court ruling that had affirmed the right to conduct prayer meetings on private property without state permission.

Court’s key observations

During the hearing, the Bench posed a direct query to the State regarding whether permission had been sought for offering namaz inside a private residence, according to LiveLaw.

The Additional Advocate General, Anoop Trivedi, appearing for the State, relied on the police challan and acknowledged that permission had indeed been sought from the persons present in the house, including the owner.

Taking note of the circumstances and the statement recorded from Haseen Khan in open court, the Bench issued strong protective directions.

The Court ordered:

“This Court directs that two armed guards 24/7 shall protect Haseen Khan till this Court decides otherwise. The said guards shall accompany him wherever he goes. Any incident of violence that afflicts Hassen Khan’s person or his property shall be prima facie understood to have at the instance of the State, which of course is open to rebuttal.”

It further observed that any act of violence directed against Khan or his property would be prima facie presumed to have occurred at the instance of the State, though the State would have the opportunity to rebut that presumption.

Personal appearance ordered for Bareilly officials

The Court has summoned Bareilly’s District Magistrate Avinash Singh and Senior Superintendent of Police Anurag Arya to appear before it on the next date of hearing.

In its order, the Bench warned that failure to appear could lead to coercive measures, including securing their presence through a non-bailable warrant.

The complete order may be read here.

Background: Earlier High Court ruling on private prayer

The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of an earlier ruling by the Allahabad High Court in a separate case involving Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust.

In that January judgment, the Court held that no permission from the State is required to conduct religious prayers within private premises, since such activity falls within the scope of the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.

However, the Court clarified that if religious activities spill onto public roads or public property, authorities may require intimation or permission under applicable law in order to maintain public order.

Ground reality in the village

Despite the High Court’s intervention, reports suggest that the situation on the ground remains tense.

According to reporting by The Times of India, residents of Mohammadganj village say that prayers inside private houses have not resumed, even after the contempt notice issued by the Court. Several villagers reportedly walk nearly two kilometres to offer namaz elsewhere, particularly during the month of Ramadan.

Local residents told the newspaper that although police harassment had reduced after the Court’s order, the presence of police personnel in the area continues and prayers within homes remain suspended due to fear of renewed tensions.

Some residents also alleged that individuals who were earlier detained for offering prayers had been required to report to the police station daily for several days, and that their names now remain in police records.

Origins of the dispute

The dispute reportedly began in December 2025, when construction materials were brought to a piece of land owned by Tarik Khan. Villagers suspected that the structure being built was intended to function as a mosque, triggering protests and police intervention.

Tarik Khan later filed an affidavit stating that the construction would not be used for religious purposes, but tensions persisted.

Subsequently, a group of Muslims began offering prayers inside a private house belonging to Haseen Khan, leading to the police action that has now become the subject of litigation.

Constitutional implications

The case raises broader questions about the scope of religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution, particularly the distinction between private religious activity and public religious assembly.

By ordering armed protection for the house owner and warning that any violence may be presumed to be state-instigated, the High Court’s interim directions underscore the seriousness with which it is treating allegations of state interference in constitutionally protected religious practice.

The matter will be taken up again on March 23, when the Court is expected to hear the personal submissions of the Bareilly district administration and consider final orders in the case.

Related:

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

The Erosion of Equal Protection: Constitutional attrition and State apathy in targeted attacks on Kashmiri vendors across the states

Bail for Monu Manesar, along with his grand welcome, rekindles fear and grief in Junaid–Nasir Lynching case

Policing Identity: Maharashtra’s birth certificate crackdown and the politics of belonging

The post Allahabad High Court orders 24/7 armed protection for Bareilly Muslim man allegedly prevented from offering namaz at home appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The groups addressed a press conference in Mumbai after the Maharashtra Cabinet recently cleared the proposed Maharashtra Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2026, which is intended to regulate religious conversions and impose penalties for conversions deemed “unlawful” or “forced.” According to media reports, the proposed law could provide for imprisonment of up to seven years and fines that may extend to ₹5 lakhs.

Detailed report may be read here.

Civil society representatives argued that while the legislation is framed as a measure to curb coercive conversions, it is rooted in the politically charged narrative of “love jihad” and risks enabling intrusive state oversight over personal choices relating to marriage and faith, as per Free Press Journal.

Concerns over surveillance of personal choice

Activists expressed particular concern over provisions expected to be included in the bill, based on similar laws enacted in other states and media reports about the Maharashtra proposal. These include requirements for individuals intending to convert to seek prior permission from a designated authority, provide advance notice of conversion — reportedly up to 60 days — and register the conversion after it takes place. Failure to comply with these procedures could potentially render the conversion invalid.

Civil society groups warned that such requirements effectively place personal belief and religious choice under administrative surveillance.

Human rights lawyer Lara Jesani of People’s Union for Civil Liberties emphasised that the freedom of religion under the Constitution necessarily includes the right to adopt or change one’s faith.

In a patriarchal social context, she cautioned, such laws risk becoming tools in the hands of families, vigilante groups and state authorities to control women’s decisions regarding marriage and religion, as per Hindustan Times.

Questions over necessity of the law

Speakers at the press conference also questioned the justification for introducing such legislation in the absence of credible data demonstrating widespread cases of forced religious conversion.

According to The Hindu, Jesani noted that there is little publicly available evidence or official studies indicating that coercive conversions constitute a systemic problem requiring new legislation. Without such data, activists argued, the necessity of the law remains unclear.

Civil society organisations further pointed out that existing provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita already criminalise acts such as fraud, coercion, intimidation and forced marriage, which can address any genuine instances of forced conversion.

Demand for transparency and consultation

Another major concern raised by the coalition was the lack of transparency surrounding the proposed legislation. Although the Cabinet has approved the draft bill, the text of the law has not yet been made public.

Civil rights activist Teesta Setalvad, secretary of Citizens for Justice and Peace, criticised the absence of public consultation and urged the Maharashtra government to release the draft for wider scrutiny, reported The Hindu.

Setalvad argued that legislation affecting fundamental rights — particularly those concerning religious freedom and personal autonomy — must be developed through an open and participatory process involving stakeholders such as women’s groups, minority communities and legal experts.

Civil society groups also called for the proposed bill to be referred to a legislative standing committee to allow for detailed examination and debate before any attempt is made to enact it.

Constitutional challenge already pending

Activists further pointed out that the constitutional validity of similar anti-conversion laws enacted in several states is already under challenge before the Supreme Court of India.

A batch of petitions filed in 2020 — including the lead petition by Citizens for Justice and Peace — challenges the anti-conversion laws enacted in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh, on grounds that they violate fundamental rights relating to privacy, personal liberty and freedom of religion (Free Press Journal, March 12, 2026).

Given that these challenges remain pending before the apex court, civil society groups questioned the prudence of introducing another similar law without first awaiting judicial clarity on the constitutionality of such provisions.

Broad coalition of organisations

Among the organisations participating in the press conference were Mumbai for Peace, Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Forum Against Oppression of Women, Bombay Catholic Sabha, Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, and the Dalit Human Rights Defenders Network, among others.

Collectively, the organisations demanded that the Maharashtra government make the draft bill public, initiate consultations with civil society and affected communities, and refrain from advancing the legislation without meaningful democratic debate and scrutiny.

They also reiterated that if the state proceeds with the law in its present form, it is likely to face constitutional challenges in court.

The complete press note may be accessed below.

Related:

Survey of Churches, anti conversion laws only empower radical mobs: Archbishop Peter Machado

Hearing in batch of CJP-led petitions challenging state Anti-Conversion laws defers in SC; Interim relief applications pending since April 2025

Allahabad HC: Quashes FIR under draconian UP ‘Anti-Conversion Act’, warns state authorities against lodging ‘Mimeographic Style’ FIRs

September of Fear: Targeted Violence against Christians in Rajasthan exposes pattern of harassment after Anti-Conversion Bill

The post 35 civil society groups oppose Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion law, warn of threat to women’s autonomy and constitutional freedoms appeared first on SabrangIndia.