Why in the News?

• The Union Cabinet has approved a revamped UDAN Scheme with higher funding and extended subsidy support.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• UDAN Scheme (Objectives, Key Features, Funding Mechanism, Achievements, Challenges, etc.)
• News Summary

UDAN Scheme

• The Ude Desh ka Aam Nagrik (UDAN) scheme was launched in 2017 under the Regional Connectivity Scheme (RCS) to enhance air connectivity to underserved and unserved regions.
• Objectives

• Improve regional connectivity across Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities.
• Make air travel affordable for common citizens.
• Promote balanced regional development.
• Enhance the infrastructure utilisation of unused and underutilised airports.

• Key Features

• Airlines are selected through a competitive bidding mechanism.
• Viability Gap Funding (VGF) is provided to airlines to operate on less profitable routes.
• 50% of seats are offered at a capped fare of around Rs. 2,500 per hour of flight.
• Focus on connecting remote, hilly, and island regions.

• Funding Mechanism

• Initially funded through a Regional Connectivity Scheme levy imposed on flights operating on major routes.
• The levy subsidised airlines operating on regional routes.

• Achievements of the Scheme

• Over 600 routes have been operationalised since launch.
• More than 90 airports, including many previously unused airstrips, have been revived.
• Improved last-mile connectivity in remote areas such as the North-East and hilly regions.

• Challenges

• Low route viability after subsidy withdrawal.
• Limited passenger demand in certain regions.
• Operational challenges such as infrastructure gaps and airline sustainability.
• High discontinuation rate of routes after the subsidy period.

News Summary

• The government has approved a major revamp of the UDAN scheme to address structural issues and improve sustainability.
• Increased Funding and Scope
  • The revamped scheme has a total outlay of 28,840 crore, which marks a nearly six-fold increase from the earlier allocation.
  • The scheme now goes beyond airport redevelopment to include support for operations and maintenance.
• Extension of Subsidy Period

• Subsidy support for airlines has been extended from three years to five years.
• This aims to improve route viability and reduce premature discontinuation.

• Shift in Funding Source

• Subsidy funding will now come directly from the government exchequer instead of the RCS levy.
• This marks a significant policy shift in financing the scheme.

• Viability Concerns Highlighted
  • The revamp was triggered by poor performance under the earlier scheme:

• Over 90% of routes fell into disuse after subsidy withdrawal.
• Only about 7%-10% of routes remained viable beyond the subsidy period, as noted by a CAG report.
• Out of 663 routes launched since 2017, 327 have been discontinued.

• Airport Infrastructure and Expansion

• 100 additional airports will be redeveloped with an outlay of Rs. 12,159 crore.
• Around 441 aerodromes will receive operational and maintenance support.
• This reflects a shift from infrastructure creation to sustained operational support.

• Focus on Last-Mile Connectivity

• Development of 200 helipads to improve connectivity in remote regions.
• Investment in helicopters and small aircraft to strengthen regional aviation networks.

• Support for Aircraft Procurement

• Procurement of HAL Dhruv helicopters for Pawan Hans.
• Procurement of HAL Dornier aircraft for Alliance Air.
• This aims to enhance fleet availability for regional routes.

Why in news?

The government has proposed increasing Lok Sabha seats from 543 to 816 — a 50% rise — based on the 2011 Census (rather than the upcoming Census) to implement the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam (Women's Reservation Act), 2023.

The proposal, being discussed with various political parties to build consensus, is likely to face significant legal and constitutional hurdles.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What Is Being Proposed?
• Why the 2011 Census?
• Constitutional Provisions Governing Lok Sabha Seat Allocation
• The Delimitation Freeze: Why Lok Sabha Seats Have Been Unchanged Since 1971
• The Road Ahead: How Delimitation Will Proceed
• Legal Tests: The Constitutional Hurdles Ahead

What Is Being Proposed?

• Lok Sabha seats to be increased from 543 to 816.
• 273 seats to be reserved for women (33% of 816).
• Delimitation to be based on the 2011 Census, not the upcoming Census.
• Existing proportional representation among states to be maintained.
• A similar increase proposed for state Assembly seats.

Why the 2011 Census?

• The Women's Reservation Act, 2023 links the implementation of the quota to delimitation, which in turn requires a fresh Census.
• By using the 2011 Census instead of waiting for a new one, the government aims to fast-track implementation while avoiding the politically sensitive issue of states with higher populations — largely in the north — gaining seats at the expense of southern states that have performed better on population control.

Constitutional Provisions Governing Lok Sabha Seat Allocation

• Article 81 establishes the foundational principle of equal representation in the Lok Sabha through two key clauses:
  • Article 81(2)(a) — The ratio between the number of seats allotted to a state and its population must be, as far as practicable, the same for all states.
  • Article 81(2)(b) — Each state must be divided into constituencies such that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it is, as far as practicable, uniform throughout the state.
• Article 81 makes a single exception — very small states with a population not exceeding 6 million are allowed disproportionate representation to ensure they still receive adequate representation in the Lower House.
• Article 82 mandates that upon the completion of each Census, both:
  • The allocation of Lok Sabha seats to states, and
  • The division of each state into territorial constituencies

The Delimitation Freeze: Why Lok Sabha Seats Have Been Unchanged Since 1971

• The current freeze on delimitation — meaning Lok Sabha seat allocation has remained unchanged since 1971 — is the result of two successive constitutional amendments:
  • 1976 Amendment — Froze the definition of "last preceding census" in Articles 81 and 82 to mean the 1971 Census for the purpose of seat allocation among states. This freeze was set for 25 years.
  • 2001 Amendment — Extended the freeze further, until the "relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published". The freeze will thus automatically expire once the current Census figures are released.
• Why Was the Freeze Introduced?
  • The core reason was the fear of southern states losing political representation:
    • Southern states had stabilised their populations through effective family planning.
    • Several northern states, however, were experiencing rapid population growth.
    • Under a strictly population-based delimitation, southern states would have seen their relative share of Lok Sabha seats decline — effectively penalising them for their success in controlling population growth
  • The freeze was thus a political compromise to ensure that states were not disadvantaged for performing better on demographic indicators.

The Road Ahead: How Delimitation Will Proceed?

• If the government chooses not to extend the freeze, the next step would be Parliament passing a new Delimitation Act under Article 82.
• This is the established constitutional process:
  • Census conducted → figures published
  • Parliament passes a Delimitation Act
  • Central Government constitutes a Delimitation Commission
  • The Commission demarcates boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies as per the Act
• The Last Delimitation Exercise
  • As per the Election Commission, the most recent delimitation of constituencies was conducted on the basis of 2001 Census figures under the Delimitation Act, 2002.
  • This was an intra-state delimitation — redrawing constituency boundaries within states — and is distinct from the inter-state seat allocation, which has remained frozen since 1976.

Legal Tests: The Constitutional Hurdles Ahead

• The Core Constraint: Article 81
  • Any delimitation exercise using the 2011 Census must comply with Article 81's "one person, one vote, one value" principle — ensuring each constituency has roughly equal population.
  • Unless Article 81 itself is amended, the Delimitation Commission cannot arbitrarily increase seats by 50% per state without being bound by this principle.
• Two Possible Legal Routes
  • Route 1: Amend the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam
    • If women's reservation is delinked from the next Census and delimitation by amending the Act itself, there would be no need for a Delimitation Commission — and reservation would automatically come into force.
    • This is the simpler path.
  • Route 2: Amend Articles 81 and 82
    • If the government proceeds with delimitation using 2011 data, it would need to amend Articles 81 and 82 — opening the door to judicial challenge on multiple grounds.
• Constitutional Challenges
• Violation of Right to Equality — Amending Article 81(2)(a) to do away with the "one person, one vote" principle could be challenged as violating Article 14 (Right to Equality) and thereby the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
• Article 14's Reasonable Classification Test — Even invoking positive discrimination under Article 14 would require proving that southern states need special protection based on backwardness — a standard India's legal system currently does not recognise for states with better development indicators.
• Delimitation Commission's Judicial Reviewability — Any constitutional violations by the Commission can be challenged in court.
• A Possible Way Out: The "Compensatory Principle"
  • Experts suggests that since constitutional amendments are inevitable, Parliament could devise a "compensatory principle" to address the concerns of southern states — potentially offering them safeguards against losing relative representation.

Why in news?

The WTO’s 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) will be held from March 26–29 in Yaoundé, Cameroon.

As the organisation’s highest decision-making body, it meets roughly every two years and has the authority to take decisions on WTO rules and set the future direction of global trade negotiations.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• MC14: A Multilateral Meeting in a Unilateral World
• Why Trade Multilateralism Is in Crisis?
• Key Issues at MC14
• What Should India Do at MC14?

MC14: A Multilateral Meeting in a Unilateral World

• The MC14 is taking place against a deeply troubled backdrop for global trade.
• Rising US-China geopolitical rivalry, ongoing global conflicts, and the increasing securitisation of trade relations have collectively weakened the foundations of multilateral cooperation.
• Most significantly, trade multilateralism is in retreat as unilateralism surges. The US has launched a sweeping assault on the WTO-based trading order by weaponising tariffs — imposing them arbitrarily in ways that violate two cardinal WTO principles:
  • The Most Favoured Nation (MFN) Rule — which prohibits discriminatory treatment between trading partners.
  • Bound Rate Obligations — which prevent countries from imposing tariffs beyond mutually agreed ceilings.
• Beyond tariffs, the US has also begun negotiating one-sided bilateral trade agreements through tariff coercion — pressuring countries into deals on American terms, further bypassing the multilateral framework that the WTO was built to uphold.

Why Trade Multilateralism Is in Crisis?

• The roots of the crisis lie in Washington's growing belief that the WTO — which the US itself was instrumental in creating in 1995 — has not served American interests.
• Two developments have driven this disillusionment:
  • China's Rise — China's meteoric economic growth over the past two decades has significantly narrowed the power gap between Washington and Beijing.
  • Failed Expectations — The US had hoped that China's WTO accession (which it facilitated) would discipline Beijing's state-led industrial policies. It did not.
• The US Response: Dismantling the WTO from Within
  • Rather than reforming the WTO, the US chose to weaken it:
    • It paralysed the WTO's Appellate Body — the organisation's highest judicial arm — by relentlessly blocking the appointment of its members.
    • Without a functioning Appellate Body, the WTO's dispute settlement system — its most powerful enforcement tool — has been rendered ineffective.
  • This gives the US the freedom to act outside WTO legal constraints and confront China on its own terms
• The WTO's Internal Weakness: Consensus Paralysis
  • Beyond US actions, the WTO suffers from a structural weakness — its consensus-based decision-making makes drafting new trade rules extremely slow.
  • In over three decades, the WTO has produced only two new agreements:
    • Trade Facilitation Agreement
    • Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies
  • This sluggishness has pushed countries to seek trade rule-making through Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) — bypassing the multilateral framework altogether.

Key Issues at MC14

1. Plurilateral Agreements: A Way Forward or a Pandora's Box

• A central debate at MC14 is whether plurilateral agreements — deals between fewer than all WTO members — should be incorporated into the WTO rulebook (Annex 4).
• Two key agreements are in focus:
  • Investment Facilitation for Development — endorsed by 120+ countries
  • Agreement on Electronic Commerce
• While inclusion in Annex 4 requires consensus among all members, many countries see plurilateral agreements as the best way to reinvigorate the WTO's stalled legislative function.
• India, however, warns that opening this door could fragment the system — a logjam MC14 must resolve.

2. The E-Commerce Moratorium

• First agreed in 1998 and renewed every two years, this moratorium prevents WTO members from imposing tariffs on electronic transmissions. It is set to expire on March 31. Developed countries want it made permanent.
• Developing countries like India are reluctant — as digital trade has surged, continuing the moratorium could mean significant revenue losses.

3. Special and Differential Treatment (SDT)

• SDT recognises that not all WTO members are on equal footing and grants special rights to developing countries and LDCs.
• The US wants to weaken SDT by excluding larger developing economies — China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia — from its benefits. Developing countries must strongly resist this move.

4. Restoring the Appellate Body

• With the WTO's dispute settlement system paralysed by the US blocking Appellate Body appointments, MC14 must unequivocally demand its restoration to put the WTO's judicial function back on track.

5. Defending Foundational WTO Principles

• The US is expected to use MC14 to challenge core WTO principles, particularly the MFN (Most Favoured Nation) rule.
• Developing countries that benefit from these principles must mount a strong, united opposition.

What Should India Do at MC14?

• India, a long-standing advocate of trade multilateralism, must now lead by example.
• It should use MC14 to champion multilateralism, forge alliances with developing countries, and reclaim its role as the normative leader of the Global South.
• To do this effectively, India must be willing to revisit entrenched positions — including its opposition to plurilateral agreements — and explore innovative solutions like electing Appellate Body members through voting.
• A failed MC14 would hand a victory to American unilateralism and its coercion-based trade order — an outcome deeply damaging to the developing world.

Why in News?

• India has unveiled its updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for 2035 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in line with its obligations under the Paris Agreement.
• These targets reflect a progression over earlier commitments and aim to reconcile climate ambition with developmental priorities and energy security.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Key Highlights of India’s 2035 NDC Targets
• Understanding NDCs and Climate Governance
• Significance of India’s Climate Strategy
• Main Pillars of India’s Climate Strategy
• Challenges and Concerns
• Way Forward
• Conclusion

Key Highlights of India’s 2035 NDC Targets:

• Expansion of non-fossil energy capacity:
  • Target: 60% of installed electricity capacity from non-fossil sources by 2035.
  • Current status: India already achieved about 52% (2025). Target was to achieve 50% by 2030.
  • Sources include: Solar, wind, hydro, biomass, nuclear.
  • Indication: Early achievement of 2030 target (50%), showcasing rapid renewable expansion.
• Reduction in emissions intensity:
  • Target: 47% reduction in emissions intensity of GDP (from 2005 levels) by 2035.
  • Current progress: 36% reduction achieved (2005–2020) and the 2030 target is 45% reduction.
  • This reflects continued emphasis on energy efficiency and low-carbon growth.
• Enhancement of carbon sink:
  • Target: 3.5–4 billion tonnes CO₂ equivalent carbon sink.
  • Current progress: About 2.3 billion tonnes achieved by 2021 (2.5–3 bn tonnes to be achieved by 2030).
  • Focus on afforestation, reforestation, and ecosystem restoration.

Understanding NDCs and Climate Governance:

• What are NDCs? These are voluntary climate action plans under the Paris framework, updated every 5 years with increasing ambition, reflecting national circumstances and capabilities.
• India’s NDC evolution: Demonstrates incremental progression principle.
  • 2015: First NDC (targeting 2025)
  • 2022: Updated NDC (targets for 2030)
  • 2026: Third NDC (targets for 2035)
• Global stocktake (GST) influence: Based on findings of the Global Stocktake (GST) (initiated 2021), it was held that the world is not on track for the 1.5°C goal.
• India’s targets: These are shaped by equity and CBDR-RC principle (Common But Differentiated Responsibilities), developmental needs and energy security. India is on track or ahead in several parameters.

Significance of India’s Climate Strategy:

• Leadership of Global South: India positioned as a climate leader among developing countries. This signals commitment despite the historical responsibility of developed nations.
• Balancing growth with sustainability: Focus on energy access, industrial growth, and climate mitigation, and reflecting “climate justice” approach.
• Strategic autonomy in climate policy: NDCs are self-determined, not externally imposed, aligning with domestic priorities like energy security and affordable power.

Main Pillars of India’s Climate Strategy:

• India’s NDC is operationalized through the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and its nine national missions, as well as the State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCC).
• India’s climate action is being implemented at local level through various schemes and programme such as:
  • Jal Jeevan Mission,
  • National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture, Sustainable Habitat,
  • MISHTI (Mangrove Initiative for Shoreline Habitats & Tangible Incomes),
  • National Disaster Management Plan,
  • Soil Health Card and
  • Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY), etc.
• People-centric approach:
  • India’s climate efforts are centered around the principle of “Lifestyle for Environment (LiFE),” which is transforming sustainable living into a mass movement.
  • The initiatives like ‘Ek Ped Maa Ke Nam’ transformed tree plantation into a people-driven climate action.

Challenges and Concerns:

• Modest ambition: Critics argue that targets do not match India’s current progress. For example, 60% non-fossil capacity is seen as under-ambitious.
• Gap between capacity and generation: Though 52% capacity is non-fossil, only ~25% actual generation due to intermittency of renewables.
• Land and infrastructure constraints: Renewable expansion faces land acquisition issues, and transmission bottlenecks.
• Forest cover limitations: Current forest and tree cover (~24.6%) is lower than the target of 33% (National Forest Policy).
• Global inequities: Developed countries allegedly rolling back climate commitments, and imposing unilateral trade measures (e.g., carbon border taxes).

Way Forward:

• Enhancing renewable energy ecosystem: Invest in grid infrastructure, energy storage technologies, and green hydrogen.
• Bridging capacity-generation gap: Improve efficiency and reliability of renewables. Promote hybrid systems (solar + wind + storage).
• Strengthening carbon sink: Expand agroforestry, urban forestry, and community-led conservation.
• Climate finance mobilisation: Push for international climate finance, technology transfer, and leverage initiatives like green bonds.
• Policy and institutional reforms: Streamline approvals for renewable projects. Strengthen climate governance frameworks.

Conclusion:

• India’s updated 2035 NDCs reflect a measured yet pragmatic escalation in climate ambition, rooted in equity and developmental realities.
• While the country is on track to meet or exceed several existing targets, concerns remain about the adequacy of ambition in the face of the global climate crisis.
• Going forward, India’s role will be crucial in shaping a just, inclusive, and sustainable global climate order, particularly as a voice of the Global South.

Context

• The global shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy is shaped by tensions between energy security, economic stability, and climate responsibility.
• Simon Stiell warned that fossil fuel reliance erodes national sovereignty, especially during geopolitical crises.
• At the same time, voices like Greta Thunberg reflect impatience with the slow pace of transition.
• However, the pathway forward is not binary; it involves managing trade-offs between development needs, strategic autonomy, and sustainability.

Fossil Fuel Dependence and Strategic Vulnerability

• Fossil fuels remain central to industrial economies but create geopolitical vulnerability. Disruptions in key chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz demonstrate how energy supply can be weaponised.
• For India, which depends heavily on imported crude, such disruptions trigger economic shocks, inflation, and risks to industrial continuity.
• Yet, an abrupt exit from fossil fuels is equally dangerous. Developing nations rely on coal, oil, and gas to sustain growth and employment.
• Without a structured transition or energy infrastructure, abandoning these resources could lead to industrial collapse and weakened economic resilience.
• Thus, fossil fuels are both a liability and a necessity.

Renewables: Independence or New Dependency?

• Renewable energy promises long-term stability because solar and wind power cannot be physically embargoed once systems are installed.
• This creates a sense of energy independence absent in fossil fuel systems.
• However, renewables depend on critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements.
• Their supply chains are highly concentrated. The Democratic Republic of the Congo dominates cobalt extraction, Australia leads in lithium production, while China controls much of global processing.
• This concentration introduces supply chain risk and strategic dependence. A disruption in mineral flows or manufacturing, whether due to conflict or trade restrictions, could stall renewable deployment.
• In this sense, the transition replaces oil dependency with mineral dependency, shifting rather than eliminating geopolitical risk.

The Role of Crisis in Accelerating Transition

• Geopolitical crises often accelerate the energy transition. Rising fossil fuel prices make renewables more attractive despite high capital costs.
• When oil prices surge, the payback period for renewable projects shrinks, encouraging governments to prioritise energy diversification.
• In contrast, when fossil fuels are cheap, governments tend to favour fiscal prudence over long-term transformation.
• Stable oil markets reduce urgency, slowing investments in clean energy. For India, disruptions in oil supply may force a faster transition, driven by necessity rather than planning.
• Such crisis-driven shifts can strengthen energy sovereignty, but they may also lead to rushed decisions without addressing underlying structural challenges.

Equity and Historical Responsibility

• The global transition raises questions of climate justice and fairness. Developed nations built their economies using fossil fuels, achieving high levels of industrialisation and strategic reserves.
• Expecting developing countries to rapidly decarbonise without similar opportunities creates an imbalance.
• India must balance its growth ambitions with climate commitments. Affordable and reliable energy remains essential for development.
• A just transition requires technology transfer, financial support, and recognition of differing national circumstances. Without this, the push for renewables risks reinforcing existing inequalities.

Ethics Beyond Economics and Fear

• Framing fossil fuel dependence as a threat to security relies heavily on fear-driven policy.
• While effective in the short term, such narratives often lose impact as nations adapt through alternative strategies.
• A durable transition must be rooted in ethical responsibility. Renewable energy adoption should be driven by the need to address climate change, not just economic or strategic gains.
• This includes acknowledging the environmental and social costs of mineral extraction, such as ecological damage and human rights concerns in mining regions.
• Consistency in ethical standards is crucial. Concerns about mining impacts should persist regardless of fossil fuel prices, ensuring that sustainability is not reduced to convenience.

Conclusion

• The transition to renewable energy involves navigating a complex landscape of geopolitics, economics, and ethics.
• Fossil fuels expose nations to external shocks, while renewables introduce new dependencies on minerals and supply chains. Crises can accelerate change, but sustainable progress requires careful planning.
• For countries like India, the goal is a balanced pathway that preserves economic stability while advancing energy transition.
• Ultimately, the strongest foundation for this shift lies not in fear or opportunity, but in a shared commitment to protecting the planet and ensuring a more equitable future.

Context

• The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 introduces significant changes to India’s legal framework governing gender identity and the rights of marginalised communities.
• While the government presents the amendments as corrective measures addressing the ambiguities of the 2019 Act, a closer examination reveals that the Bill may deepen structural inequalities rather than resolve them.
• By narrowing definitions, reinforcing problematic classifications, and overlooking key socio-legal realities, the legislation raises serious concerns regarding inclusivity, scientific accuracy, and human rights.

Redefining Identity: Restriction and Exclusion

• One of the most contentious aspects of the Amendment Bill is its narrowed definition of a transgender person.
• By limiting recognition to specific socio-cultural identities such as hijra, kinner, and aravani, as well as biologically defined intersex variations, the Bill excludes individuals with fluid or non-heteronormative gender identities.
• This restrictive approach not only erases the diversity within gender identities but also undermines the lived realities of those who do not fit into rigid cultural or biological categories.
• Furthermore, the removal of the right to self-perceived gender identity, previously recognized under the 2019 Act, marks a regressive shift.

Conceptual Confusion: Sex vs Gender

• A central flaw in the Bill lies in its conflation of sex identity and gender identity.
• By categorising male and female as gender identities rather than biological sex markers, the legislation demonstrates a lack of conceptual clarity.
• This confusion extends further in its treatment of intersex persons, who are biologically diverse, as part of the transgender category, which is primarily a social and psychological identity.
• It erases the distinct medical, legal, and social needs of intersex individuals, thereby limiting the scope of protections available to them.
• International bodies such as the United Nations and the World Health Organisation clearly distinguish between these categories, advocating for separate recognition and safeguards.
• The Bill’s divergence from these standards risks weakening India’s alignment with global human rights frameworks.

Structural Invisibilisation and Data Deficit

• The absence of reliable data on transgender and intersex populations further complicates the issue.
• Without accurate demographic and socio-economic data, policy interventions remain superficial and ineffective.
• The continued failure to distinguish between sex and gender in official documentation perpetuates invisibility, leaving millions outside the reach of welfare systems and legal protections.
• Separating these categories in administrative frameworks would not only improve data accuracy but also enable targeted policymaking.

Broader Concerns Surrounding the Amendment Bill

• Medicalisation and Privacy Concerns
  • The introduction of a medical board-led certification process signals a shift toward the medicalisation of identity.
  • Mandatory reporting of surgeries and increased institutional oversight raise serious concerns about privacy and bodily autonomy.
  • A particular concern is the continued neglect of intersex infants, who remain vulnerable to non-consensual normalising surgeries.
  • Despite global calls for banning such practices, the Bill does not provide explicit legal safeguards, thereby failing to protect bodily integrity.
• Legal Recognition of Exploitative Structures
  • While the Bill introduces stricter penalties for forced exploitation, it paradoxically leaves intact the deeply entrenched hijra jamath-gharana system.
  • By targeting external coercion without addressing internal hierarchies, the legislation risks legitimising exploitative practices within these communities.
  • These systems often involve economic control, restricted mobility, and lack of access to education, particularly for abandoned gender non-conforming children.
• Absence of Intersectionality and Civil Rights
  • It fails to account for how caste, disability, religion, and poverty intersect with gender identity to produce compounded discrimination.
  • Without targeted provisions, marginalised subgroups within the transgender community remain excluded from meaningful protection.
  • Additionally, issues such as marriage, adoption, inheritance, and succession are central to legal recognition and citizenship.
• Policy Framework and Terminological Limitations
  • The continued use of the term transgender as an umbrella category reflects a broader policy limitation.
  • The rejection of proposals to adopt a more inclusive framework such as GIESC (Gender Identity/Expression and Sex Characteristics) demonstrates a reluctance to modernize terminology in line with scientific understanding.
  • This outdated framework not only limits inclusivity but also reinforces a singular identity narrative, ignoring the diversity of sexual orientations and gender expressions within the community.

Conclusion

• The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, despite its stated intent to strengthen protections, ultimately reinforces many of the structural flaws present in the 2019 Act.
• By narrowing definitions, conflating distinct identities, and neglecting critical issues such as bodily autonomy, intersectionality, and civil rights, the Bill risks institutionalising exclusion rather than alleviating it.
• A more effective approach would require a scientifically grounded and rights-based framework that clearly distinguishes between sex and gender, ensures robust legal protections for intersex individuals, dismantles exploitative systems, and guarantees full civil rights.