Indian transgender patients left in limbo following legal amendments
When transgender woman Kali Sidharth Medepalli began hormone replacement therapy in India, she expected to complete her medical transition and undergo surgery within a year. But just months after she began treatment earlier this year, India’s parliament amended the country’s transgender law, and the clinic where she was receiving care stopped her medicines. “Everything shut down,” the 23-year-old…
Transgender woman Kali Sidharth Medepalli began receiving hormone replacement therapy in India, but faced an abrupt halt to her treatment after the Indian parliament amended the country's transgender law. The 23-year-old communications specialist and LGBTQ rights activist in Hyderabad was left without medicine for 10 days, experiencing discomfort from the change.
The amendment introduced penalties for those who force someone into a transgender identity through surgery or hormone treatments. Authorities claim the changes aim to protect vulnerable groups and strengthen penalties for exploitation. However, activists and doctors argue the amendment has caused confusion and uncertainty for thousands of people.
Kali managed to obtain her medicine using an existing prescription, but had to self-medicate. She expressed relief that doctors took the oath to do no harm, but questioned how they can refuse care without risking legal consequences. Some private clinics continue treatment but with additional precautions, while others charge higher fees.
The uncertainty is particularly challenging for those without supportive families, established doctors, or financial resources for private care. The lack of official figures makes it difficult to assess the disruption's scale, but estimates suggest India's transgender population could range from 5 to 6 million. The amendment has also impacted transgender identity certification, as the government's online portal for applying for a transgender identity card has been non-functional since its implementation.
A petition challenging the amendment in the Supreme Court argues that it violates constitutional protections such as dignity, autonomy, and privacy.
Written by urgent.news from South China Morning Post's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
