Rajasthan High Court Deletes Earlier Remarks On Transgender Bill 2026, Uploads Updated Version

In an order passed on March 30, Justice Arun Monga, in the epilogue to the judgment, had remarked that the Transgender Amendment Bill 2026, which received the Presidential Assent on March 30, 2026, took away the transgender person's right to self-determination.

“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,” Justice Arun Monga wrote in the epilogue.

Justice Monga had further commented that the state should be mindful that the statutory developments could not be implemented in a manner that dilutes the constitutional guarantees and the comparative models adopted by the State should be structured in a manner that advances inclusion without subjecting identity to impermissible constraints.

“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.

The court had also noted that the policy framework devised by the state should strive to preserve the constitutional guarantee by extending reservation. It had noted that the state should adopt an approach that harmonises statutory compliance with constitutional congruity, ensuring that transgender person's rights are not left illusory.

“In the altered legal landscape, any policy framework devised by the State must be careful and it must strive to preserve, to the fullest extent possible, the constitutional guarantee by extending affirmative measures of reservation. Any framework, be it legislative or executive, the Rule of Law demands that such measures must withstand scrutiny not merely of legality, but of constitutional conscience. The State, as a constitutional actor, is expected to adopt an approach that harmonizes statutory compliance with constitutional congruity, ensuring that the rights of transgender persons are not rendered illusory by procedural constraints. The true measure lies in the tangible dismantling of systemic marginalization that transgender persons continue to endure,” the court had ensured.

On Thursday (2^nd April), the bench however issued a clarificatory order replacing its earlier order. The court has deleted the above three paras in the updated version and added two new paras in its place. The court has now observed that the main judgment, which was passed keeping in mind the legal position on the date, should be complied with and that the state had a duty to ensure that any policy framework evolved pursuant to the directions is within the contours of the existing law as on date of the judgment.

The remarks were made in a plea of a Transgender person challenging a 2023 notification issued by the State of Rajasthan by which the State declared transgender persons as “Other Backward Class”.

The bench had directed the State to form a committee to identify the extent of marginalisation suffered by the transgender persons and to recommend appropriate measures. The bench has also directed the State to award an additional 3% mark to transgender persons in matters of public employment and education.

Case Title: Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and Others

Case No: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1358/2025

Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 117