“I cannot go and question someone’s gender. But people can question my gender and my community’s gender?” asked Raghavi Shukla, a transgender person and a pioneer — the first openly transgender lawyer to argue in the Supreme Court of India.
Over the past few weeks, India’s transgender community has taken to the streets across the country to protest against the government’s Transgender Amendment Act (2026).
One of the most controversial aspects of the Act is the requirement to ‘prove’ one’s transgender identity before a medical board, with the final stamp of approval to be given by a district magistrate.
Another provision drawing strong opposition is the introduction of strict penalties, including jail time, for anybody accused of ‘alluring’ or ‘influencing’ someone to become a transgender person—a move activists say could be grossly weaponised by parents and others against support groups and NGOs working with the community.
“You first undergo a medical procedure. After that, as a trans person, you have to go through a screening by a medical board. The medical board’s recommendation goes to the district magistrate. Now, the district magistrate also has the discretion under the provision, which uses the term “if necessary and desirable,” to seek the opinion of additional experts, such as doctors and people from the medical fraternity. So, you may again be sent to another expert for medical screening. Then they will send you back again to the district magistrate," Shukla explained.
"Is there any such mechanism for people who do not identify as trans? No," Shukla added.
"It is a colonial mindset that they are replicating, and it is a complete erasure of India's history of allowing multiple expressions of gender identity," they added.
In this episode of Badi Badi Baatein, Shukla decodes the government’s new Act, explains how it impacts the community and compromises their dignity, and questions the government’s intent and rationale.
The bill was tabled in Parliament without prior notice, taking the entire community by surprise. What raised further concern was that even members of the transgender welfare board said they had not been consulted. Those who have spoken publicly about the matter have stated that the board was not involved in the process at all.
First, for those who may not be familiar with it, could you briefly explain what exactly the bill proposes, what it would require the transgender community to do, and why it has been seen as problematic?
So, there are welfare boards, there are community-based organisations, and there is a statutory body which is formed within the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act 2019, and that statutory body is called the National Council for Transgender Persons, which has representatives and members from across the country. It is considered to be the apex body to work with the government and advise the government on issues that impact the community at large.
Now the thing is, that they were not consulted. Even after the bill was tabled, they wanted to meet the Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, but they were not allowed to, even though they were asked to come from different parts of the country to meet the minister. However, when they reached his residence, they were told that the minister could not meet them.
They were told, “Okay, let’s have a meeting.” And then that meeting did not happen.
Instead, what happened was that the bureaucrats—especially one person, Yogita Swaroop—met them. And it was a very bitter exchange that happened. They were humiliated.
Apart from that, there is a committee that was formed by the Supreme Court. This committee was also not consulted.
The third thing is how Mr Rijiju, who is the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, said that this bill had been discussed and had been with the committee for one year. However, every member of the community has refused this and said that no, something like this has never happened.
A lot has been discussed about the definition. A lot has been discussed about medical screening. However, I want to emphasise criminalisation, which is a very dangerous thing.
The queer community, which includes trans persons, trans men, non-binary people, trans women, all of us, you are trying to break us. You are trying to break support networks, care, and community.
How are you doing that? You are adding certain provisions that do two things. First, they put the narrative out there that trans bodies or identities are not identities that you decide for yourself and that it is based on your own choice. You are saying that it is enforced on people. It is imposed. Second, you are showing trans people as criminals. And it comes from a very colonial mindset. We have seen the Criminal Tribes Act earlier, which portrayed trans people as criminals, as habitual offenders.
Now you have a situation where you are criminalising care by using words like: if someone forces trans identity on a person by using things like; and these are the words being used: allurement, coercion, undue influence, fraud.
Now these are very vague and overbroad words. They will lead to a situation where they can be weaponised against anyone.
This bill gives parents and authorities a weapon to come after these organisations, these support networks, these friendships, these communities. And that is a very dangerous thing because it can also be used to criminalise anyone who comes out in support of a trans person.
The removal of the provision of self-determination according to the NALSA judgment and the Act that has been in place so far, what was the need to do this?
So, I’ll give you a bit of context.
Through this bill, the government is removing the existing provision under Section 42 that protects the right to self-determination, a constitutionally recognised fundamental right.
Now the definition is being narrowed down to only include socio-cultural identities. That too, only four socio-cultural identities have been mentioned. However, we have a whole lot of socio-cultural identities that are recognized in the definition as it stands now. For example: Thirunangai, Nupi Maanbi, Nupi Maanba, and others.
However, now we only have four socio-cultural identities, intersex people, and people who were forced to assume trans identity or upon whom trans identity was imposed. Who all are excluded? Socio-cultural identities apart from the four mentioned, trans men, non-binary people, trans women like me who did not become part of a socio-cultural identity like Kinnar or Hijra and decided to take our own route and become professionals.
Now all of us do not know who we are in the eyes of the law. Where do we go from here? We are excluded now. It has sent a lot of fear across the community, especially among trans men. Because I personally feel that I, as a trans woman, might still have the possibility of joining some gharana and becoming part of a socio-cultural identity. But they have completely removed trans men and non-binary people.
Intersex people have also strongly opposed this. They have been opposing it for a very long time, asking why they are being labelled as trans people.
So, you now have a situation where trans men and trans women are excluded from this definition. Some of them have already gone through medical procedures. They have already socially transitioned and legally transitioned, meaning they have changed their documents to reflect their chosen gender and name.
There are partners of trans people messaging me and calling me, asking whether their marriage will still be recognised. There are trans people asking whether they will reach a point where they cannot access gender-affirming healthcare. Some have asked me whether they should stop their hormone therapy or cancel surgeries scheduled next month or later this year.
There is so much confusion, anxiety, stress, and fear. It is overwhelming.
You do not just wake up one day and say you are a woman or a man or a trans person. You also do not just say this, and people immediately accept you as such. You go through a lot of processes. Some people mock it by saying that one day someone will identify as a penguin or a cat. But that is a ridiculous argument. Gender is a social construct.
If today I have documents with my dead name or what I call my dead gender, how will I access public spaces? If I go to the airport, what will they see in my document, and how will they perceive me?
The defence by those who are speaking from the government’s side, or speaking in favour of this bill, is: what if somebody tries to come and misidentify as a trans person in order to avail themselves of these welfare schemes?
What are these welfare schemes? What are the existing welfare schemes? I mean, how many people have they impacted? Can you give a little bit of data on that? How many people have actually registered as trans people right now?
What are the welfare schemes? Have you ever gone and checked? Have you ever filed an RTI to see what schemes are available?
Have you ever seen the budget allocation and the amount that was spent out of that budget on welfare schemes for trans people? How many trans people have been able to avail houses under the welfare schemes for housing, or avail healthcare under Ayushman?
If you want to avail any scheme that is being offered for a trans person, you will need a valid ID. The government is not going to give it to you on the basis of you saying that you are a trans person.
That valid ID is what you get under Section 6 of the Act, which is a Digi ID card or a certificate.
Now, how many people have received this certificate? It is a number between 30,000 to 35,000. Considering our country’s population, it is a very, very small number. It’s a very small figure.
Who are these people who are misusing it? Because you need to offer people welfare schemes for them to be in a position to misuse or exploit them, as people claim.
There are no schemes as such. I, as a trans person, have not availed a single scheme because there are no schemes that address my needs.
I want to go abroad and do my master’s, do my LLM. Are there any schemes for trans persons? Is the government offering us any scholarships?
If I were to give someone advice who was planning to become a trans person just to misuse these schemes, I would tell them:
A: There are no schemes.
B: The amount of time you will spend getting legal recognition as a trans person; you could spend the same amount of time studying and clearing the SSC or UPSC exams. You will be better placed in society.
How do you look at the inclusion of the entire medical board aspect of this? Because the fact is that if somebody wants to get gender-affirming surgery, they will have to consult a medical board. That medical board will then consult a district magistrate.
How do you see the inclusion of so much bureaucracy in something like this?
The thing is that now they are introducing a five-layer process.
You first get whatever medical procedures done. The problem with that is that you are forcing people into medical procedures.
My question to them is: how many people can afford safe medical procedures? If they are unable to access safe medical procedures, they will go for unsafe practices.
So you first undergo a medical procedure. After that, as a trans person, you have to go through a screening by a medical board.
The medical board’s recommendation goes to the district magistrate. Now the district magistrate also has discretion under the provision, which uses the term “if necessary and desirable,” to seek the opinion of additional experts, such as doctors and people from the medical fraternity.
So, you may again be sent to another expert for medical screening. Then they will send you back again to the district magistrate.
This is what we have to go through as trans people.
Is there any such mechanism for people who do not identify as trans? No. There is no such procedure.
I cannot go and question someone’s gender. But people can question my gender and my community’s gender.
We are being forced to go through these levels of screening—provisions that will be very difficult, exhausting, taxing, stressful, and traumatising. People may end up thinking: “Let me just live like this. Whatever. I will just continue existing.” You are forcing people to go through the trauma of not feeling right in their own bodies. You are pushing them into a medical hell and a mental health crisis.
You are pushing them toward depression, suicidal ideation, and the possibility of dying by suicide.
This is something you would have realised had you consulted people from the community.
My greatest worry is that the options for many people in my community are either to live a lie, or to decide not to live at all, or to go through unsafe medical procedures and humiliation by medical boards and district magistrates.
I do not see any other option being there.
What is being asked at every public gathering, at every press conference, and at every meeting of the community that has taken place over the past few weeks since this bill came in is: what was the need to introduce this bill? From your conversations with people from the ruling side, bureaucrats, and members of the opposition over the past few days, what are you picking up? What was the need to do this?
When the bill was tabled, a lot of us were trying to meet parliamentarians and members from both the opposition and ruling parties. Even within the NDA, we had meetings with people.
No one had any idea that something like this was happening. Even after it was tabled, a lot of MPs we met were unaware that such a bill had been tabled.
As I have already said, none of us from the community had been involved in consultation. I have personally been invited by the ministry for consultations before. None of us had any idea this was happening.
We still do not know the intent or the reason behind this because none of us asked for it. We are still not asking for it. All of us are collectively saying: please take it back.
The only argument they have made, if you read the statement of objects and reasons, is the one about welfare schemes.
Again, I say: go file an RTI and see how many welfare schemes exist for trans people and how many of those schemes were actually availed. The figures are very disappointing and sad.
Even the budget allocation over the years has been somewhere between 6 to 9 percent of it was utilised.
So, you are not giving us enough money, and whatever money you are giving us, you are using only 6–9 percent of it.
I don’t see any logic here. If misuse was happening, why was it not mentioned in consultations? Why did you not come to us and say:
“Look, we implemented these schemes. This is the issue we are facing. What can we do about it?”
Different trans identities within the community have different needs.
But you kept the penal provision where the maximum punishment for even raping a trans person is two years. That is the maximum punishment. We demanded that it be changed. It was not changed.
There were many other demands we had. None of them were addressed. But you bring this bill?
Raghavi, could you tell us some of your own experiences in daily life that you already have to go through without this act or law being in place?
I can’t travel. I get invitations from organisations in other countries that want me to attend events, but I can’t go because my passport is still under process. I don’t know if that process will be completed now, or if it will conclude in my favour.
I can’t make plans to travel abroad.
There are many documents you have to change if you want to legally transition. You change your Aadhaar, you change your PAN. But changing educational documents takes a lot of time.
Now imagine someone has managed to change their Aadhaar and PAN, but the rest of their documents remain unchanged.
If they apply for a job, their application may be rejected because there is a discrepancy between their Aadhaar and educational documents.
Or imagine entering an examination hall. If my document says I am a man and I walk in presenting as a woman, what happens?
When you come out as a trans person, it carries a lot of consequences. You lose family, you lose friends, you lose opportunities. If I were a man, maybe I would've made for a 'better' lawyer, or maybe I would've had more clients.
Look around you. Why don’t you see trans people in your offices? Why don’t you see trans kids in schools and colleges? Because they were never allowed to be part of the mainstream.
I feel like, apart from all the shit that we have to go through, there is another batch that is waiting for us and coming to us; you should not be going through all this just because you decided to be brave enough to live your reality.
Can you take us through some of the cases that you have handled, through your work, what is the kind of social impact an act or a bill like this will further have on the community that is already having it so difficult out there?
There are so many friends of mine, and I will not only get into cases, but there are also friends of mine who have had to run away from their house. Because they were being forced into conversion therapy. They were being given shock treatment by a psychiatrist. There are trans men who were forced into corrective rapes. And that means that the rape was justified by the family. And whoever advised the family, saying that this person only needs to have some kind of physical relationship with someone, and their femininity will just wake up. I have personally seen how trans persons are treated in workspaces. I have been dealing with cases where they have been kicked out without any justification.
They faced sexual and physical abuse, and nothing happened. Police refuse to register a report. Now, where do they go? We have discussed criminalisation. So, allurement, coercion, and forcing a trans identity on someone can get you prison time from ten years to a lifetime. However, if someone goes and rapes a trans woman, a trans man or any trans person, they will only get a maximum punishment of two years.
And this tells you the intent of the bill. It tells you the intent of the policymakers, the people who are behind this bill, that the welfare of trans people was never their priority. They are only following the pattern that is happening in the West. It is a colonial mindset that they are replicating, and it is a complete erasure of India's history of allowing multiple expressions of gender identity.
Raghavi, you are a lawyer today. Now you are going to be on the other side fighting to prove your identity as legal. How does the, you know, the anticipation of what is going to come make you feel?
I don’t know how it works out, how it will work out because it's anxiety inducing. I don't even want to think about it. I'm just hoping that somehow this bill will just disappear. Because I know the court battle is going to be a long one. It is going to be. It will take a lot of time.
Imagine entering the airport or with washrooms also what kind of situation it will create. We do not know that there are going to be so many things and possibilities that will start. Hounding us, they already are. So, we really don't know.
You know, bringing in this law and everything the community already has to go through shows the fragility of the statements that get made. All your pink stations at metros, rainbow stations employing trans people—this law completely undoes the faith and recognition that the community had started getting. It brings me to a larger question about the rights and legality of the queer community itself. Whatever rights the NALSA judgment provided are now getting undone by one bill passed with a brute majority.
Do you see things heading in that direction?
We also need to realize there is a bigger question here: how our Parliament is functioning.
How many bills are being sent to select committees or standing committees?
When 20–25 opposition MPs stand up and say, “Send it to a committee so we can work on it together,” it is refused. You have a bill tabled on the 13th and within ten days it is passed, with barely eight hours of discussion.
They have come for my rights and the rights of the trans community today. They will come for your rights tomorrow.
If you do not speak up, you are inviting something that will also wipe out your rights.
All the meetings happening right now remind people of the movements that happened before 2018.
Yes. It is also very similar to what happened with Section 377: the Delhi High Court judgment in Naz, then Koushal overturning it, and then Navtej restoring it.
Maybe there is still hope somewhere. And we will hold on to that hope.