A large turnout of transgender, intersex, and gender-diverse individuals marched to Lok Bhavan in Thiruvananthapuram on Tuesday, burning copies of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, and demanding its withdrawal along with an apology from the Union government. The demonstration began at Martyrs’ Column in Palayam and ended at Lok Bhavan under the banner of the Queer-Trans-Intersex Rights Joint Action Committee Keralam.
Protesters argued that the bill, framed in the name of protection, strips away the right to gender self-determination that the Supreme Court recognized in 2014 and that the existing 2019 Act had sought to safeguard. They pointed out that the proposed amendment narrows the definition of transgender by removing self-identified identities and replacing them with a medical scrutiny framework. One participant, Prijith P.K., noted that self-perceived identities have been removed from the definition, describing the move as regressive and contrary to constitutional rights.
A key point raised by the activists was the selective inclusion of socio-cultural identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani, and jogta, arguing that the bill’s definitions do not reflect the full spectrum of gender-diverse identities present across the country. They emphasized that Kerala already has limited visibility of some of these identities, making the new framework an attempt to impose a uniform standard that overlooks local realities. Arjun Geetha, a transgender man, argued that the bill mirrors the Union government’s ideological stance rather than the lived experiences of the community, and criticized the process for lacking substantive consultations with those affected.
Activists warned that the bill could invite stringent penalties, including a minimum of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fines exceeding ₹2 lakh on mere complaints, a provision they argued would violate human and constitutional rights. They urged open dialogue, broader consultation, and withdrawal of the bill. The demonstration coincides with national debates on self-determination and privacy rights, underscoring the urgency of inclusive policymaking that reflects diverse identities.
