ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 26th June. Click Here for more information.
Context
The decision to re-introduce the 2016 Bill on transgender rights makes a mockery of democratic norms
What has happened?
The transgender community and its allies have erupted in anger over the decision of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to re-introduce the original Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016 in the winter session of Parliament.
Why the protest?
Despite resistance to the 2016 Bill followed by a year-long process to redraft it to reflect the demands of the community, the Ministry has taken the decision, and without a single change
Journey of the Bill
- SC’s recognises fundamental rights of transgender persons: Supreme Court in its landmark decision in NALSA v. Union of India as a victory recognised that transgender persons have fundamental rights
- Private member’s bill: The judgment was followed by a private member’s Bill, the Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014, which was unanimously passed in the Rajya Sabha
- Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2015: Instead of introducing it in the Lok Sabha, the Ministry uploaded its own Bill, the Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2015, on its website in December for public comments
- Changes:The 2015 Bill, which was largely based on the 2014 Bill, did away with the national and State commissions for transgender persons and transgender rights courts
The Bill was fairly progressive since it granted a transgender person the right to be identified as a ‘man’, ’woman’ or ‘transgender’
- A highly diluted version of the bill faces backlash: However, the 2016 Bill that was finally introduced in the Lok Sabha, came as a shock. A highly diluted version, it also pathologised transgender persons by defining them as “partly female or male; or a combination of female and male; or neither female nor male”
- Expert standing committee:Met with backlash, the Ministry set up an expert standing committee on social justice and empowerment to examine the Bill. The standing committee invited public comments and thereafter held multiple rounds of consultations
Report of the committee
Its report, released on July 22, 2017 criticised the 2016 Bill for its stark deficiencies
- It recommended re-drafting the definition of a ‘transgender person’ to make it inclusive and accurate
- It further recommended providing for the definition of discrimination and setting up a grievance redress mechanism to address cases of discrimination; and granting reservations to transgender persons
- Equal civil rights to Transgender persons: Its major recommendation was that the law must grant equal civil rights to transgender persons (marriage, divorce and adoption), thus opening the door for the legal system to take steps to undo its oppressive heteronormative (the presumption that heterosexuality is the norm) and cisgendered (the presumption that people’s gender identity is aligned with their anatomical sex) foundation
Reintroduction is against the policy
The Ministry’s decision to re-introduce the 2016 Bill disregards the pre-legislative consultative policy which requires Ministries to grant a minimum of 30 days for public comments and to place a summary of feedback/comments received from the public/other stakeholders on their website
