New Delhi, March 25 (NationPress) Congress Member of Parliament Renuka Chowdhury fiercely criticized the Union government in the Rajya Sabha while discussing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. She likened the legislation to a "Special Intensive Revision (SIR) on transgender individuals" and asserted it constitutes an act of discrimination rather than a protective measure.

The Bill, which received approval from the Lok Sabha on Tuesday through a voice vote amidst a walkout by the Opposition, is now under consideration in the Upper House of Parliament.

Chowdhury initiated her remarks by directing a challenging inquiry towards her fellow Rajya Sabha members.

She questioned the validity of the self-identification of gender that all Members of Parliament acknowledge while completing official forms prior to entering Parliament.

"The Constitution stands with those who identify as transgender today. The Prime Minister (Narendra Modi) himself has identified as non-biological," she stated, igniting a stir within the House.

She quickly clarified that her comment was not intended as a critique of Prime Minister Narendra Modi but rather as a recognition of his progressive stance on the matter.

"Transgender individuals are represented in the Supreme Court, in law enforcement, and on sports fields winning medals for the nation. What is there to be ashamed of? Why impose new laws upon them?" the Congress Rajya Sabha MP questioned.

Chowdhury expressed that the Amendment Bill undermines the hard-fought rights of the transgender community by shifting from self-identification to increased bureaucratic and medical scrutiny.

She further remarked that the legislation appears more focused on exerting control than on authentic welfare or inclusivity.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, aims to amend the 2019 Act, including modifications to the process of legally recognizing gender identity.

Critics, including several MPs from the Opposition, argue that it weakens the principle of self-identified gender upheld by the Supreme Court in its landmark 2014 NALSA judgment.

As the debate progressed, members from various opposition parties voiced concerns that the Bill could reverse constitutional protections and create unnecessary barriers for one of the most marginalized groups in society.

In contrast, the Union government maintains that the amendments are intended to provide clarity and enhance the effectiveness of welfare initiatives for transgender individuals.

The discussion is anticipated to escalate into more intense political exchanges as the House moves forward with a clause-by-clause examination of the Bill.