The Rajasthan High Court has modified its March 30 verdict to expunge certain portions criticising the recently enacted Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. In a clarificatory order issued on April 2, the court said that its observations that the amendment diluted constitutional guarantees had been included “by mistake” and were “neither intended nor necessary.”
The March 30 ruling on a petition filed by a transgender woman included an epilogue authored by Justice Arun Monga, which observed that the new law, by curtailing the right to gender self-identification, departs from the “constitutional baseline” set by the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India. It further noted that the amendment risked reducing what the top court had recognised as an “inviolable aspect of personhood” to a “contingent, State-mediated entitlement”.
The amendment Bill was passed in Parliament last week and became law with the President’s assent late on Monday (March 30).
‘Included by mistake’
In its April 2 order, the Rajasthan HC Bench observed that certain portions had been inadvertently included in the epilogue of the earlier judgment. It accordingly directed the deletion of paragraphs which stated that the rights of transgender persons must not be “rendered illusory by procedural constraints” and which criticised the amendment for making legal recognition of gender identity contingent upon “certification, scrutiny, or other forms of administrative endorsement”.
“Upon our re-reading of the epilogue, it appears that by mistake the following text was included therein, although it was neither intended nor necessary,” said the Bench, which also included Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit.
Editorial | A shade of dark: On the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026
However, the judges declined a request that the epilogue be excluded from the judgment or disregarded for precedential purposes. “Having heard counsel and perused the application, we are not persuaded to accept the submission that the epilogue dated 30.03.2026 should not be read as part of the judgment… Accordingly, no such orders are warranted in that regard,” the Bench said.
The ruling came in a case arising from a petition filed by Ganga Kumari, a transgender woman working in the Rajasthan Police. She sought horizontal reservations for transgender persons in public employment, meaning a separate quota for trans people within each socio-economic reservation category. Challenging a notification issued by the Rajasthan government placing all transgender people under the other backward class (OBC) category, the petitioner contended that such a classification was discriminatory, as it failed to account for transgender people who may belong to the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), economically weaker sections (EWS), or the general category.
‘Changing legal landscape’
In the revised epilogue, the Bench retained its position that the right to self-identify one’s gender is an “intrinsic facet of dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution” and “not a matter of concession, but a matter of right”. It, however, added that the epilogue is to be treated as a “statement of facts in the process of a changing legal landscape”.
The Bench further clarified that the epilogue would now record that, while the judgment was being finalised, Parliament had passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, though it had not yet come into force as it was awaiting Presidential assent and formal notification. It also added a caveat directing the State government to ensure that any policy framework evolved pursuant to the court’s directions remains “within the contours of the existing law as on the date of the judgment, i.e. March 30, 2026.”
In the deleted portions of the epilogue, the court had directed the Rajasthan government to ensure that any policy framed in light of its judgment would “preserve, to the fullest extent possible, the principle of self-identification, within the contours of the amended law”. It had also cautioned the State to remain “mindful” that statutory developments cannot be implemented in a manner that dilutes “constitutional guarantees” or subjects the process of gender self-identification to “impermissible constraints”.
‘Mere eyewash’
Ruling in favour of the petitioner, the court, on March 30, struck down the State government’s circular and held that by subsuming transgender people within the OBC list, those belonging to the SC, ST, or other categories were deprived of any meaningful benefit. It observed that such a classification was a “mere eyewash” and forced transgender persons to choose between their gender identity and their right to caste-based reservation.
The court also pointed to data placed on record by the State, which indicated that the OBC classification had not benefited any transgender individual to date. In view of this, it directed the State government to grant a 3% additional weightage in marks to transgender candidates across all reservation categories in public employment until a comprehensive policy is framed in this regard.
It further ordered the constitution of a committee, to be headed by the Principal Secretary of the Social Welfare Department and comprising representatives of social activists and the transgender community, to “assess the extent of compounded marginalisation faced by transgender persons across SC, ST, SEBC/OBC, and Open categories vis-a-vis others.”
Published – April 03, 2026 08:22 pm IST
