Brazen attack on constitutional rights of transgender people’: Rahul slams Centre on bill
The leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha termed the bill “regressive” and alleged that the BJP-led government at the Centre is violating the Constitution and destroying India’s rich history of honouring transgender communities in pursuit of its narrow ideas.criminal penalties and surveillance without safeguards,” he said.
The BJP government has not consulted the trans community and brought a bill which stigmatises rather than protects them, Gandhi claimed.
“The Constitution protects every Indian’s right to life, liberty, identity and dignity. This BJP government is violating our Constitution and destroying India’s rich history of honouring transgender communities in pursuit of its narrow ideas. The Congress party unequivocally opposes this bill,” he said.The bill underlines that a transgender person “shall not include, nor shall ever have been so included, persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities.”
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill notes that it is imperative to give a precise definition for proper and definitive identification and protection of transgender persons, to whom the benefits of the present law must reach.
The protection and benefits that are provided under the present 2019 law are vast in nature and, therefore, care has to be taken that “such identification cannot be extended based on any acquirable
“The BJP government’s Transgender Persons Amendment Bill is a brazen attack on the Constitutional rights and identity of transgender people. This regressive bill strips transgender people of their ability to self identify, violating a Supreme Court judgment; wipes out the diverse cultural identities of communities across India, forces trans people to undergo dehumanising examinations by a medical board, and introducesclaimed self-perceived identity of an individual”.
The bill also contains provisions for “designation of an authority” which will have the option to seek “expert advice” if required.
A new clause defines “authority” as a medical board headed by a chief medical officer or a deputy chief medical officer appointed by the central government, state government or a Union territory administra