New Delhi: On the day Parliament gave its seal of approval to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2026 amid opposition MPs demanding that the bill be sent to a standing committee for wider consultation, two National Council for Transgender Persons members of the community sent their resignations to the social justice minister. Virendra Kumar To register our strong protest against the Bill and the lack of consultation. The bill provides a more precise definition of “transgender persons”, making it clear that it will not include persons with “diverse sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities”.“From the NCTP, some of us tried to reach out to you as the voice of the community and we felt that we were not heard,” Rituparna Neog, council member from the North-East region, said in her resignation letter addressed to Kumar, who is the president of the statutory body. The body is believed to have around 10 members representing the transgender community.The other member who resigned, Kalaki Subramaniam, representative of the southern region, lodged a strong protest over the lack of consultation with the community who sees the bill as “regressive” and “a step back for their fundamental rights to self-identity and dignity”. “I cannot continue to have a seat at the table where our collective voice has been silenced,” she said.The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, which was passed in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, was passed by voice vote in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday. Congress party’s Renuka Chaudhary initiated the discussion and raised a provocative question – “If no one asks us – men and women – to prove our gender before a medical board, then who are we to question the identity of trans people?”At the end of the discussion, Minister Virendra Kumar reiterated that the Bill aims to provide protection only to those who face serious social discrimination because of their biological status. He sought to counter the opposition to the removal of the clause on self-identified identification and the introduction of a Medical Board, saying that the objective was to secure the rights of TG individuals by removing the scope for any ambiguity and to enable delivery of benefits to genuine individuals through administrative clarity. BJP members also joined the voice in support.The amendment, which will now become law after the assent of the President of India, marks a significant departure from the existing law as it removes the clause that allows “self-perceived gender identity” to be the basis for approval of transgender certificate by the District Magistrate for Self-Determination and Recognition.A medical board chaired by the Chief Medical Officer has been introduced, and the District Magistrate will issue a certificate of transgender identity, after examining the recommendation of the medical board, cited as an “authority” constituted by the Central or State Governments.The Bill proposes to create specific offenses with graded penalties that reflect the seriousness of the harm, the irreversibility of the injury and the particular vulnerability of child victims.DMK’s Tiruchi Siva, who brought a private member’s bill “The Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014”, reflected the struggles of the community to get their rights and sought consultation with stakeholders, legal experts, civil society, transgender community as well as a review by the select committee. Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD), Saket Gokhale (TMC), CPI (M) MP John Brittas, NCP-SCP leader Fauzia Khan, Jaya Bachchan (SP), Shiv Sena-UBT’s Priyanka Chaturvedi, Sanjay Singh And AAP’s Sandeep Pathak, IUML’s Abdul Wahab, among others, strongly opposed the bill.Even YSR Congress Party’s Gola Babu Rao and BJD’s Subhashish Khuntia joined the chorus of other opposition members and demanded that the bill be sent to a parliamentary committee for stakeholder consultation.The first sign of reaction from the community came when two NCTP members resigned soon after the bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha. Also the community members, who have been agitating through press conferences and outreach campaigns since the introduction of the Bill, are now planning to take to the streets through demonstrations in the states. In her resignation letter addressed to the Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, Kalki Subramaniam said, “Till February 2026, my experience of working with officials of the Ministry was one of mutual respect and a shared vision for an inclusive India. However, the recent introduction and passage of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2026 has created an untenable situation for me.”“As a statutory representative, my primary duty is to advise the government on legislation that affects our lives. “The decision to pursue this bill without any formal consultation with me or other community representatives of the NCTP undermines the very purpose for which this council was established,” he said. Registering her protest over the bill passed by Parliament, Rituparna Neog in her resignation letter said, “While I understand my responsibility as an NCTP member to represent the voice of my community before the competent authority, however, in view of the present circumstances, I do not wish to continue as a member.”At a hastily called meeting by senior ministry officials on Saturday, four NCTP members Abhinaa Aher, Vidya Rajput, Raveena Bariha and Subramaniam had strongly reiterated that “self-affirmation of transgender identity, as upheld in the NALSA decision, must remain the foundation of transgender identity”.After the meeting, members highlighted the absence of Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar, who was reported to be chairing the meeting. “We were informed that the minister is unable to attend due to ill health and alleged family emergency,” Aher said.According to Aher, at the meeting led by Joint Secretary Yogita Swarup, senior economic advisor in the ministry, government officials raised concerns about identifying “genuine” transgender persons and mentioned biological markers such as chromosomal combination (XX/XY). She added, “NCTP members clarified the concept of gender incongruence/dysphoria, mental health aspects and the impact of stigma, although they felt there was a gap in understanding of transgender issues among officials.”The TG Council members also stressed at the meeting that the definition of transgender person in the Bill is not inclusive and should clearly include transgender men and transgender women; Use respectful terminology and recognize diverse regional identities such as Nupi Manabi and Nupi Manba (Manipur).On the provision in the Bill to introduce screening by a medical board, NCTP members initially called for the removal of this provision. Aher said, “However, considering the government’s position, members proposed that any assessment should be limited to mental health support, should not involve invasive physical examinations, and should maintain dignity and be consistent with NALSA decisions.” The need for gender-neutral laws to address violence against transgender persons was also strongly raised.Now that the bill has been passed in Parliament without heeding any suggestions from NCTP member representatives, the community has announced to launch protests and demonstrations from Thursday.

Srinagar: PDP MLA Waheed Para’s private member’s bill proposing creation of 16 new districts in Jammu and Kashmir and two additional divisions in Jammu has drawn sharp criticism from the ruling NC as well as the opposition BJP, who have questioned the intention behind the proposed law.The NC said the bill was “a deliberate attempt to subvert the government’s intention of awakening public opinion and empowering the sub-sectors”. The BJP described the proposal as divisive and alleged that it was in line with Pakistan and ISI’s plan to create ‘Greater Kashmir’.Parra presented the Jammu and Kashmir Territorial Administrative Reorganization Bill to the Assembly Secretariat, which proposes new administrative divisions and districts in the union territory to “improve governance and administrative accessibility”.The bill seeks to create two new divisions in Jammu – Chenab and Pir Panjal. There is also a proposal to create eight additional districts each in Kashmir and Jammu. At present, Jammu and Kashmir has two divisions, Jammu and Kashmir, each consisting of 10 districts.The bill has gained popularity on social media, sparking debate and forcing political parties to respond. NC spokesperson Imran Nabi Dar said the PDP’s move to bring the resolution, while the government is working towards empowerment of the sub-regions, shows a different intention. Alleging that this was indicative of an attempt at sabotage, he questioned why the Mehbooba Mufti-led party was discussing new districts and divisions despite lacking the legislative strength to carry out the proposals.During the PDP-BJP tenure in 2016-17, similar recommendations made by an expert committee were rejected by the government. “Now when the NC government is planning to empower the sub-regions, the PDP is bringing such bills to create distrust among the people,” he said, terming it a “sabotaging bill”.BJP alleged that the proposals given in the bill are related to the agenda of ISI. “The bill proposes two additional divisions for Jammu – one comprising Kishtwar and Doda, and the other Rajouri and Poonch. They are referring to these as the Chenab Valley and Pir Panjal regions. We do not accept these terms. This was part of the ISI design in the 1990s to merge these Muslim-majority areas with Kashmir and create ‘Greater Kashmir’.” The PDP is working on the same agenda. We will not allow this,” said BJP spokesperson Altaf Thakur.Pointing out that Kashmir traditionally has three regions called Maraz (South Kashmir), Kamaraj (North Kashmir), and Central Kashmir, he asked: “Why don’t they create three divisions here too? Why do they want to break only Jammu?”However, Thakur said there could be a case for creating three new districts in Kashmir and if needed, the three existing police districts in the Valley could be upgraded to full districts.

New Delhi: The Congress on Wednesday took a dig at the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led central government for its remarks that India does not see itself as a “dalal” (middleman) like Pakistan, and questioned its past diplomatic outreach.Congress leader Pawan Khera said in a post on Twitter: “Was India a ‘broker country’ when Modi was desperate to mediate between Russia and Ukraine? Selective brokerage or selective memory?”