Inviolable Aspect Of Personhood Now At Risk Of Becoming 'State-Mediated Entitlement': Rajasthan High Court On Transgender Bill 2026

Update on April 3- Rajasthan High Court Deletes Earlier Remarks On Transgender Bill 2026, Uploads Updated VersionThe Rajasthan High Court has remarked that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, which seeks to amend the Transgender Act 2019, is seemingly taking away a transgender person's right to self-determination. Justice Arun Monga noted that the right to self-perceived gender identity, which was guaranteed under the 2019 Act has been taken away in the recent amendment and the new amendment proposes that recognition of gender identity would be conditioned under certification and scrutiny. The court thus remarked that the amendment has reduced a transgender person's personhood to a state-mediated entitlement. “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 judge said. Justice Monga made the remarks while hearing 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, also comprising of Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit has 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. In the epilogue, Justice Monga noted that the bench had authored the judgment based on the foundational premise articulated by the Supreme Court in the NALSA judgment, that the right to self-identity of gender was an intrinsic aspect of dignity, autonomy and personal liberty under Article 14,15,16, and 21 of the Constitution. Noting that the new amendment effectively takes away this right, the court noted that it was still incumbent upon the State to ensure that the policy, evolved after the court's directions, preserve the principle of self-identification, to the fullest extend possible, while being within the contours of the amended law. The court highlighted that any policy framework by the State should strive to preserve the constitutional guarantee by extending reservations and should have a harmonising approach. The court added that the statutory developments could not be implemented in such a way that it diluted the constitutional guarantees. “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 said. It may be noted that on March 25, the parliament had passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, which seeks to narrow the definition of “transgender person”, modify the procedure for recognition of gender identity, and introduce stricter penal provisions for offences involving forced conversion of individuals into transgender identities through mutilation or coercion. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Mathur Mr. Prakash Kumar Balout Mr. Dhirendra Singh Sodha Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Deepak Chandak for Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG Mr. Mahesh Thanvi Ms. Pragya Thanvi Case Title: Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and Others Case No: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1358/2025Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 117Click Here To Read/Download The JudgmentClick here to read the version of the judgment (omitting remarks on Transgender Bill) updated on April 2

Inviolable Aspect Of Personhood Now At Risk Of Becoming 'State-Mediated Entitlement': Rajasthan High Court On Transgender Bill 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Inviolable Aspect Of Personhood Now At Risk Of Becoming 'State-Mediated Entitlement': Rajasthan High Court On Transgender Bill 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers