Rajasthan High Court Revises Judgement, Deletes Remarks On Transgender Amendment Bill

The Rajasthan High Court, in Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and Others, has issued a revised version of its earlier judgement by removing certain critical observations made on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.

The original judgement, delivered on March 30 by Justice Arun Monga, had included strong remarks in its epilogue regarding the amended law. The Court had expressed concern that the amendment could undermine the right of transgender persons to self-identification by introducing certification and administrative scrutiny.

“The subsequent amendment to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, however, marks a departure from that said constitutional baseline. It is now proposed that legal recognition of gender identity shall be conditioned upon certification, scrutiny, or other forms of administrative endorsement. What was recognized by the Supreme Court as an inviolable aspect of personhood now risks being reduced to a contingent, State-mediated entitlement,” the Court had observed.

The judgement had also emphasised that any policy framework developed by the State must align with constitutional values. It cautioned that statutory changes should not dilute fundamental rights and called for inclusive models that respect identity without imposing restrictive conditions.

“In this backdrop, the epilogue, therefore, is more of a caveat that it remains open, and indeed, still incumbent upon the State of Rajasthan to ensure that any policy framework evolved pursuant to the directions, in the judgment above, preserves, to the fullest extent possible, the principle of self-identification, within the contours of the amended law, of course. The State must be mindful that statutory developments cannot be implemented in a manner that dilutes constitutional guarantees. The comparative models, including those adopted by other States, may yet be structured in a manner that advances inclusion without subjecting identity to impermissible constraints,” the Court had said.

Further, the Court had highlighted the importance of affirmative measures and constitutional consistency. It stressed that any framework must ensure that the rights of transgender persons are meaningful and not reduced to mere formality.

However, on April 2, the Court issued a clarificatory order and replaced the earlier epilogue. The three paragraphs containing these observations were removed, and two new paragraphs were introduced. The revised version focuses on ensuring compliance with the legal position as it stood on the date of the original judgement.

The Court clarified that the directions issued in the main judgement must be followed in accordance with the existing law. It also reiterated that the State must frame policies within the boundaries of the law applicable at the time of the judgement.

The case itself arose from a challenge to a 2023 notification issued by the Rajasthan government, which classified transgender persons under the “Other Backward Class” category. The petitioner questioned the adequacy of this classification in addressing the specific challenges faced by the transgender community.

In its main judgement, the Court had directed the State to constitute a committee to assess the extent of marginalisation experienced by transgender persons. It also instructed the State to grant an additional 3% weightage in public employment and education to support their inclusion.

The updated order reflects a more restrained judicial approach, focusing on implementation rather than broader constitutional commentary on the amended law.