{"id":17817,"date":"2026-03-25T11:23:05","date_gmt":"2026-03-25T11:23:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=17817"},"modified":"2026-03-25T11:24:56","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T11:24:56","slug":"from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification\/","title":{"rendered":"From Dignity to Diagnosis: Dismantling the Right to Self-Identification"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction-transgender-bill-2026\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction_Transgender_Persons_Protection_of_Rights_Amendment_Bill_2026\"><\/span>Introduction: Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>On March 13, 2026, the government introduced The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 in Lok Sabha which seeks to omit Right to \u2018Self-Identification\u2019. [1] By removing this right government seeks to narrow down the \u2018legal umbrella\u2019 protecting the transgender community by introducing mandatory medical scrutiny.[2]<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification\/#Introduction_Transgender_Persons_Protection_of_Rights_Amendment_Bill_2026\" >Introduction: Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification\/#Foundation_of_the_Bill_Right_to_%E2%80%98Self-Identification\" >Foundation of the Bill: Right to \u2018Self-Identification\u2019<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification\/#Shift_in_Legal_Framework_2026_Amendment_Bill\" >Shift in Legal Framework: 2026 Amendment Bill<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification\/#Comparison_2019_Framework_vs_2026_Amendment\" >Comparison: 2019 Framework vs 2026 Amendment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification\/#The_Return_of_the_Clinical_Gaze\" >The Return of the 'Clinical Gaze'<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification\/#The_Erasure_of_the_Spectrum_Redefining_Section_2k\" >The Erasure of the Spectrum: Redefining Section 2(k)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification\/#Impact_of_Removal_of_Identity_Titles\" >Impact of Removal of Identity Titles<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification\/#Trading_Autonomy_for_Safety_The_Precarious_Bargain_of_the_2026_Bill\" >Trading Autonomy for Safety: The Precarious Bargain of the 2026 Bill<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification\/#State_Justification_Analysis\" >State Justification Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification\/#Constitutional_Concerns\" >Constitutional Concerns<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-dignity-to-diagnosis-dismantling-the-right-to-self-identification\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>According to this bill a person would only be called transgender only if they satisfy medical criteria, they are no longer afforded recognition based on \u2018inner sense of experience\u2019. This shift from broader to narrower framework poses haunting questions- Does the government intends to protect \u2018transgender persons\u2019 by snatching away their autonomy or is it trying to limit their existence to clinical lens that ignores their identity?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"foundation-right-self-identification\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Foundation_of_the_Bill_Right_to_%E2%80%98Self-Identification\"><\/span>Foundation of the Bill: Right to \u2018Self-Identification\u2019<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>To understand the seriousness of this shift , we need to understand the foundation of this Bill- Right to \u2018Self-Identification\u2019 mandated by apex court in NALSA v. Union of India aimed to step away from the state-sponsored regulation over gender identity.[3] By acknowledging that gender identity is rooted in person\u2019s \u2018inner sense of self\u2019 and psychological understanding of self rather than biological classification, thereby the Court placed the authority in the hands of individuals to define their identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This historical recognition was not only a milestone for transgender community but also a significant affirmation of Article 21 by establishing that right to live with dignity and individual autonomy is inseparable from right to define one\u2019s own gender.[4]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Recognition of gender identity based on \u2018inner sense of self\u2019<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Shift away from biological classification<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Affirmation of dignity under Article 21<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Empowerment of individual autonomy<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"shift-in-legal-framework-2026-amendment\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Shift_in_Legal_Framework_2026_Amendment_Bill\"><\/span>Shift in Legal Framework: 2026 Amendment Bill<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, 2026 signals a troubling reassertion of state-sponsored framework over gender identity, diluting the principle of self-identification recognized by the court.[5] The proposed 2026 Amendment Bill seeks to omit section 4(2) of 2019 legislation, a key safeguard that protected \u2018self-perceived gender identity.\u2019[6] With its removal, the legal framework appears to shift towards state backed scrutiny rather than personal autonomy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"comparison-2019-vs-2026-framework\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparison_2019_Framework_vs_2026_Amendment\"><\/span>Comparison: 2019 Framework vs 2026 Amendment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>2019 Legislation<\/th><th>2026 Amendment Bill<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Basis of Recognition<\/td><td>Self-declaration by individual<\/td><td>Medical criteria and scrutiny<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Legal Safeguard<\/td><td>Section 4(2) \u2013 Self-perceived identity<\/td><td>Section 4(2) proposed to be omitted<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Authority<\/td><td>Individual autonomy<\/td><td>State and Medical Board<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"return-of-clinical-gaze\">The Return of the &#8216;Clinical Gaze&#8217;<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The removal of section 4(2) signals a significant restructuring in the legal procedure of gender recognition.[7] Under the current framework of 2019 legislation recognition is based on system of individual\u2019s own declaration which the proposed Bill seeks to replace with system of recognition contingent upon Medical Board\u2019s recommendation.[8] This change is not merely a procedural change but a significant realignment in the balance of power. Under the amended provision District Magistrate\u2019s power to issue Certificate is subjected to the recommendation by Medical Board\u2019s instead on self-signed affidavit. [9]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Shift from self-identification to medical certification<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Increased role of Medical Boards<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Reduced autonomy of individuals<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Greater state control over identity recognition<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Such an approach of viewing \u2018transgender identity\u2019 through a medical lens once again treats them as a \u2018biological condition\u2019 that must be subjected to clinical scrutiny. This approach forces an already disadvantaged community that has historically endured discrimination in medical and bureaucratic environments, to further navigate through these very structures merely to be recognized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"redefining-section-2k\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Erasure_of_the_Spectrum_Redefining_Section_2k\"><\/span>The Erasure of the Spectrum: Redefining Section 2(k)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In addition to such procedural structures, the proposed bill also introduces a significant change in the definition clause of \u2018transgender person\u2019. The 2026 bills seeks to remove specific identity titles particularly- \u2018trans-man\u2019, \u2018trans-women\u2019 and \u2018genderqueer\u2019 from the legislative provision of section 2 (k).[10] This proposal is not simply a matter of legislative refinement rather it represents substantial shrinking of \u2018legal umbrella\u2019 protection that the original framework aimed to provide.[11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>By removing these specific identity titles, the legal framework indicates a shift from &#8216;broader inclusive approach&#8217; towards &#8216;narrower approach&#8217; grounded on biological criteria, the law overlooks the spectrum of identities that exists beyond biological and historical classifications. The new definition focuses on congenital variations, such as intersex conditions, and established traditional identities such as- Kinner or Hijra.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"impact-of-removal-of-identity-titles\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Impact_of_Removal_of_Identity_Titles\"><\/span>Impact of Removal of Identity Titles<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Shift from inclusive to restrictive legal recognition<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Focus on biological and traditional classifications<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Exclusion of self-identified gender identities<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Creation of legal uncertainty for many individuals<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This approach leads to a system where recognition is reframed not as an inherent individual autonomy but instead as a regulated classification sanctioned by the State on the basis of bodily or traditional benchmarks. Such a framework effectively creates a \u2018legal vacuum\u2019 for those whose identities are neither falls in categories defined by \u2018congenital\u2019 traits or traditional community affiliation. Consequently, trans-man and trans-women who was assigned biologically \u2018normative\u2019 status at birth, risks being rendered legally invisible. This emphasis upon \u2018congenital variations\u2019 as a threshold for recognition suggests a return towards a restrictive model of \u2018biological determinism\u2019 that the apex court explicitly sought to displace.[12]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"autonomy-vs-safety-2026-bill\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Trading_Autonomy_for_Safety_The_Precarious_Bargain_of_the_2026_Bill\"><\/span>Trading Autonomy for Safety: The Precarious Bargain of the 2026 Bill<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The government cited statement of objects and reasons in defending the proposed changes, highlighting the need to safeguard welfare benefits from being misused.[13] In justifying the amended definition of \u2018transgender person\u2019 the State is arguing that it is imprecise, which makes it difficult to identify the community genuinely needs the intended benefit of the statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"state-justification-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"State_Justification_Analysis\"><\/span>State Justification Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Explanation<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>State Concern<\/td><td>Misuse of welfare benefits<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Core Argument<\/td><td>Definition is too broad and imprecise<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Proposed Solution<\/td><td>Clinical verification of identity<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Underlying Approach<\/td><td>Regulation over self-identification<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The bill reflects that the State views right to &#8216;self-identification&#8217; as a risky basis for legal recognition. The government asserts that welfare benefits may be opportunistically claimed by individuals if the identity is being defined as a subjective experience of inner self. Such interpretation of identities, as subjective experience, may lead to a regime where identities can be easily \u2018picked\u2019 and even \u2018faked\u2019, thereby mandating introduction of compulsory clinical verification. By casting doubt on the credibility of self-identification and by associating it to \u2018acquirable characteristics\u2019 the Bill seeks to substitute personal autonomy with clinical verification, under the guise of regulatory efficiency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"constitutional-concerns\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Constitutional_Concerns\"><\/span>Constitutional Concerns<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Replacement of autonomy with medical scrutiny<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Questioning legitimacy of self-identification<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Risk of over-regulation by the State<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Potential violation of proportionality doctrine<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This reasoning appears to present a troubling exchange: protection in exchange for agency. While the bill, introduces stricter penalties for offences including life imprisonment for acts like forced identity, it simultaneously constrains the community\u2019s right to define themselves.[14] From Constitutional perspective, the proposed trade off does not justifies rigorous standard of the Doctrine of Proportionality.[15]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Even if state\u2019s objective of curbing misuse of welfare benefits is accepted as legitimate, the introduction of medically mediated acknowledgement mechanism appears to be a disproportionate response. In Mordern Dental College (2016) and Puttaswamy (2017) the apex court laid down the test of \u2018Necessity\u2019 which obligates the state while introducing restriction on rights, to ensure that the framework adopted in such restriction is least restrictive means available to serve the intended purpose.[16] The 2026 bill risks giving priority to bureaucratic convenience over constitutional values by adopting clinical validation over available less restrictive measures such as- penalizing false declarations or introducing administrative auditing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion-constitutional-morality\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>At its core, the 2026 Bill suggests tension between bureaucratic efficiency and constitutional morality driven by model of governance based on suspicion rather than trust. By prioritizing administrative caution about potential misuse over individual autonomy, the Bill may inadvertently treat transgender citizens in a position which subjects them to scrutiny first and rights thereafter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This departure from \u2018rights-first\u2019 model articulated in NALSA[17] implies that identity is being viewed as a permit granted rather than intrinsic fundamental right. Requiring clinical authentication of an individual\u2019s \u2018inner sense of identity\u2019 effectively treats the citizens as regulated subjects rather than holders of intrinsic constitutional rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If bureaucratic convenience is permitted to define boundaries of personal liberty, the constitutional protection under article 21 could be significantly compromised.[18] Ultimately the true benchmark of justice in law lies in its extend of protecting the autonomy and self-determination of people it regulates. The fundamental question, therefore, before us is whether the legal system be structured around regulations and suspicion, or one that protects the person? <strong>End Notes:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, No. 79 of 2026, Lok Sabha (India).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, 2026, cl. 2, cl. 4.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Nat&#8217;l Legal Servs. Auth. v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Nat&#8217;l Legal Servs. Auth., (2014); INDIA CONST. art. 21.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, 2026.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, No. 40 of 2019, \u00a7 4(2) (India).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, 2026, cl. 3.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Compare The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, No. 79 of 2026, cl. 4, Lok Sabha (India), with The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, No. 40 of 2019, \u00a7 6 (India).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Transgender Amendment Bill 2026, cl. 4.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Id., cl. 2.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Compare The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, No. 79 of 2026, cl. 2, Lok Sabha (India), with The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, No. 40 of 2019, \u00a7 2(k) (India).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Nat&#8217;l Legal Servs. Auth., (2014).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, Statement of Objects and Reasons.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Transgender Amendment Bill 2026, cl. 7.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; Modern Dental College &amp; Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353 (applying the four-pronged test of legitimate goal, suitability, necessity, and balancing).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Id. (emphasizing the \u2018necessity test\u2019 which requires the State to adopt the least restrictive measure available).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Nat&#8217;l Legal Servs. Auth., (2014).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>INDIA CONST. art. 21.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Written By: Sourabh Krisna Pancholi, <\/strong>3rd-year law student at Manipal University Jaipur with a keen interest in Constitutional Law and Gender Justice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction: Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 On March 13, 2026, the government introduced The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 in Lok Sabha which seeks to omit Right to \u2018Self-Identification\u2019. [1] By removing this right government seeks to narrow down the \u2018legal umbrella\u2019 protecting the transgender community by introducing mandatory<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1297,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[98],"tags":[5459,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-17817","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-third-gender","7":"tag-third-gender","8":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17817","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1297"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17817\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}