New Delhi, April 24: Friday turned into a day of underdogs in Parliament when, for the first time in 45 years, the House passed a private member's bill giving a shot in the arm to one of the country's most neglected communities.

The Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014, made it through the Rajya Sabha by voice vote thanks to the persistence of DMK member Tiruchi Siva, 61, who refused to buckle before a minister's advice and a chorus from BJP backbenchers to withdraw it.

"Each time I looked up towards the gallery I could see a group of people from the community, as though pleading with me not to withdraw the bill. That encouraged me not to give up," the four-time MP later told The Telegraph.

Siva had introduced the bill last December in the Rajya Sabha, which last passed a private member's bill in 1969. It will now be taken up in the Lok Sabha, where private bills have been facing a drought in success since 1970. (See chart)

But even passage in both Houses - a feat not even one of the 14 previous private bills passed by either House had managed - will not turn the bill into law. For that to happen, the government must adopt the bill, putting it through legal scrutiny and making any necessary changes, and then both Houses must pass it and the President give his assent.

Of the 14, just one private member's bill - passed in 1970 and dealing with the Supreme Court's powers to hear criminal case appeals - has been adopted and passed, becoming law.

What today's passage will do is put a moral obligation on the government to consider adopting the bill. In the words of Union finance minister Arun Jaitley, who seemed to support the bill in the House today, a private member's bill is like a "resolution".

A tearful Sunita, a member of the transgender community who was present in Parliament, said: "I cannot say how happy I am."

A slot is kept aside for private members' bills every Friday afternoon. Siva's success in getting his bill taken up was a triumph in itself, considering that the last Lok Sabha discussed just 42 of the 598 private bills introduced.

"I have attended and addressed many gatherings of the transgender community," Siva said. "They are not cared for, and face discrimination in every aspect of their lives. The government has no policies or schemes for their welfare." (See Metro)

The bill, thin on specifics, aims "to provide for the formulation and implementation of a comprehensive national policy for ensuring overall development of the transgender persons and for their welfare to be undertaken by the state".

It suggests "exclusive transgender rights courts", a national commission for the community, punishment for discrimination, and a year's jail and a fine for hate speeches.

BJP back-benchers shouted: "Withdraw, withdraw...."

Social justice and empowerment minister Thawar Chand Gehlot, among 19 ministers present in the House during the bill's passage, too advised Siva to withdraw it.

Opposition members among the thin attendance - typical for private members' bills - seemed largely in favour.

Ministry sources later told this newspaper that Gehlot's objections related to "technical issues" relating to the definition of "transgender". Otherwise, they said, the bill largely agreed with proposals that Gehlot's ministry was working on.

"There are many issues that still need to be resolved and a review petition is pending with the Supreme Court," Gehlot told the House.

Jaitley, supporting the bill, said it was an "important issue".

"I don't think the House should be divided on this issue. The minister (Gehlot) has said he is working on this and will bring some official policy and bill in this regard. Even if the House approves this, it does not become law. It will be like a resolution," he said.

"One option Siva has is (that) he agree to the suggestions of the minister. The other option is (that) the House, by voice vote, can echo the sentiment expressed by Siva."

Siva insisted on a voice vote. "I was sure that if it was withdrawn, it would have gone into cold storage," he told this newspaper.

Little has moved since April 15 last year, when the Supreme Court accorded legal recognition to the transgender community as a "third gender" and ruled that its members were entitled to all the fundamental rights, reservation in jobs and education, and separate public toilets.

The court had ordered the government to formulate schemes and policies to safeguard transgender rights. A year on, these remain on paper, largely because of the review petition Gehlot mentioned - one moved by his own ministry last September and condemned by rights activists as a "delaying tactic".

The only progress so far has been the community's inclusion as a specific target group in the Centre's housing scheme for the urban poor.

Gehlot's ministry has drafted a proposal to include the community in every government welfare scheme, apart from chalking out various education, skills-training and pension programmes for transgender people.

But it is waiting for the apex court's clarification on its review petition, which sought clarity on the definition of "transgender".

The government has told the court it is ready to empower the "third gender" but not gays, lesbians and bisexuals -so the court must clearly define "transgender".

Activists say the issue is redundant because the court order had nowhere said that it applied to gays, lesbians or bisexuals.

They say that "transgender" is a clearly defined term that applies to people whose perception of their own gender does not match that assigned to them by others, and does not per se refer to sexual preferences.

But to transgender rights activist Priya Babu, even the discussion in Parliament today mirrored progress.

"After years of discrimination, transgender issues are finally finding space in the mainstream," Babu said.

"Our plight was rarely discussed in public except by activists; now MPs are talking about it. It makes us extremely happy. I hope the government makes this into a law."

Babu, part of a government committee that worked on an umbrella scheme for the community, said it was surprising that a private member's bill was passed at all.

Private members' bills may have achieved little but they do flag a side of India's MPs that often gets buried under the popular image of the politician as corrupt and an unruly disrupter of parliamentary proceedings.

They show that some of India's parliamentarians have a place in their heart for issues concerning the ordinary citizen. Many of the private bills do relate to welfare, health, education and other socio-economic challenges.

HONOURS LIST

The 14 private members’ bills passed in either House of Parliament since Independence (with the years of passage in brackets):

Lok Sabha: 9

• The Muslims Wakfs Bill, 1952 (1954)
• The Indian Registration (Amendment) Bill, 1955 (1956)
• The Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Bill, 1956 (1956)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Bill), 1954 (1956)
• The Women’s and Children’s Institutions (Licensing) Bill, 1954 (1956)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1957 (1960)
• The Salary and Allowances of Members of Parliament (Amendment) Bill, 1964 (1964)
• The Hindu Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 1963 (1964)
• The Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Bill, 1968 (1970)

Rajya Sabha: 5

• The Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Bill, 1954 (1956)
• The Hindu Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 1956 (1956)
• The Orphanages and other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Bill, 1960 (1960)
• The Marine Insurance bill, 1959 (1963)
• The Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1963 (1969)