New Delhi: A Supreme Court-appointed advisory committee had sent a resolution to the Modi government asking it to “withdraw” the contentious Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 on March 20, days before the parliament passed the Bill amid opposition protests, The Wire has learnt. The Bill cleared parliament on Wednesday (March 25), following its passage in the Rajya Sabha amid sustained criticism. Earlier on Tuesday, the Lok Sabha passed the Bill by voice vote amid opposition protests.Following the Supreme Court’s verdict on Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, in which the court awarded compensation to a transgender woman, while flagging the failure of the Union and state governments to implement existing legal protections for transgender persons, an advisory committee was formed in October to frame an equal opportunity policy for increasing the participation of transgender persons in workplaces and public spaces. The committee was led by former Delhi high court Justice Asha Menon. The advisory committee met on March 20 and discussed the issues with the proposed amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, The Wire has learnt. It zeroed in on the proposed definition limiting transgender identities to only the specified congenital variations as one that would deny existential rights to those who do not align themselves with their gender assigned at birth. The committee observed that it was not a physical condition as sought to be made out under the controversial amended definition. No government official out of the seven secretaries appointed from the ministries of social justice and empowerment, women and child development, health and family welfare, education, labour and employment, personnel and training and legal affairs, was reportedly present at the meeting.The same day, the panel wrote to the government asking it to reconsider the matter and withdraw the Bill. It suggested wider consultations with the community members and stakeholders before considering future amendments.Meanwhile, The Wire has also learnt that on Wednesday morning, Justice Menon wrote a letter to Union minister social justice and welfare Virendra Kumar, reiterating that the “removal of the right recognised in the NALSA judgement to self-identification” of transgender persons “will have tremendous consequences”.In the letter sent to Kumar on Wednesday, Justice Menon said, “By limiting transgenders to congenital variations, those who do not identify with their assigned gender at birth would not be able to access gender re-affirming surgeries.”“The insistence on reporting of surgeries is violative of privacy and its objective is unclear. Amendments to penalties are unnecessary as existing provisions in the BNSS and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 are sufficient,” the letter read.The National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India judgement of 2014, had recognised the transgender identity and laid down that “self-determination of gender is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression”.This judgement, lauded at the time as a signature move in a South Asian country, set the precedent for the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and was reiterated by the top court on October 17 last year in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India.The proposed Bill departs from this, with the new definition for a transgender individual stated as “a person having such socio-cultural identities as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta, or eunuch,” or a person with specific “intersex variations,” or “a person who, at birth, has a congenital variation” in sex characteristics as compared to male or female development in their “primary sexual characteristics, external genitalia, chromosomal patterns, gondal development, endogenous hormone production or response or such other medical conditions”.It also proposes stricter verification with mandatory certification from a medical board, the details of which shall be furnished before the district magistrate along with an application.Since the introduction of the Bill in the parliament, on March 13, rights activists, opposition MPs, individuals of the transgender and queer community and their allies have held protests, both online and offline, criticising it as “derogatory” and “unconstitutional”. Members of the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP), a council formed for consultation on transgender matters after the 2019 Act, also alleged that they were neither consulted nor informed about the Bill before it was introduced.On Tuesday, the opposition staged a walkout from Lok Sabha as the government refused to send the proposed legislation to a select committee, and passed it after a discussion that lasted only about two and a half hours. While opposition members demanded it not be passed in haste, Union parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju said that it needed to be passed on Tuesday itself.Meanwhile, though the Rajya Sabha proposed to refer the Bill to a select committee following strong criticism by the opposition members, the proposal was ultimately negated by ‘voice vote’.