The Rajasthan High Court has removed parts of its recent judgment that criticised the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. Parliament passed the Bill last month. It became law after receiving the President’s assent.
The order came in Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan. A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit had included those remarks in an epilogue to its March 30 judgment.
In that epilogue, the Court said the new law risked turning “an inviolable aspect of personhood” into a State-mediated entitlement for transgender persons. The Bench observed that the law proposed to make legal recognition of gender identity subject to certification, scrutiny, or other administrative approval. It added that the Supreme Court had already recognised this right as an inviolable aspect of personhood.
Court Says Remarks Entered Judgment by Mistake
However, on April 2, the Bench revisited the epilogue and deleted several paragraphs. The Court said those portions had entered the judgment by mistake.
“Upon our re-reading of the epilogue, it appears that by mistake the following text was included,” the Bench said while ordering deletion of various paragraphs.
Petition Raised Reservation Issue
The Court made those observations while hearing a petition by a transgender person. The petitioner raised the issue of lack of reservation for transgender individuals in educational institutions and public employment.
In the March 30 judgment, the Bench clarified that it based its reasoning on the principle laid down in the NALSA judgment. It noted that the right to self-identify one’s gender forms an intrinsic part of dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also said that, even in the changed legal position, the State must frame policy with care. It added that the State must preserve the constitutional guarantee as far as possible by extending affirmative measures of reservation.
The Bench further observed that the State, as a constitutional actor, must harmonise statutory compliance with constitutional congruity. It said this approach would prevent procedural constraints from making the rights of transgender persons illusory. It added that the real test lies in dismantling the systemic marginalisation that transgender persons continue to face.
Court Rejects Plea on Epilogue
After the judgment, a party moved an application before the Court. The applicant argued that the epilogue should not count as part of the judgment.
The Bench rejected that contention. It held that the epilogue dated March 30 forms part of the judgment of the same date. It also held that the epilogue cannot avoid precedential value on that basis.
“Having heard learned 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 of the same date or be not treated as part thereof for precedential purposes. Accordingly, no such orders are warranted in that regard,” the Bench said.
However, even after holding that the epilogue forms part of the judgment, the Court directed correction of the judgment. It then removed most of the earlier remarks.
Remarks Deleted from Website Version
The Court’s earlier views received praise from many people, especially transgender persons. However, the High Court has now removed those remarks from the version of the judgment on its official website.
Also read: AI Image Bail: Delhi Court Grants Relief
