New Delhi: The Rajasthan High Court Thursday revised the epilogue of its 30 March judgment, in which it had made critical remarks about the Centre’s proposal to amend the Transgender Act, 2019 by removing the provision allowing individuals to self-identify as a third gender.
In the updated order, released on 2 April, the Rajasthan HC removed the contentious observation related to the proposed amendment. The revised order, signed by Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit, stated: “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, thereby ordering a deletion of the text.”
In its 2 April order, the Rajasthan HC noted that at the time of the original ruling, the amendment had not yet received Presidential assent and was still only a Bill passed by Parliament. As a result, the updated order effectively directs the Rajasthan government to follow the unamended Transgender Act, 2019, which formed the basis of the high court’s 30 March judgment.
“While the judgment was finalised, but just before its release, Parliament passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026,” the updated order says.
In the 30 March order, Justice Monga wrote an epilogue where he had flagged the Transgender (Amendment) Bill, 2026 as a “departure” from the constitutional baseline, referring to the right to self-perceived gender identity established in the landmark NALSA v. Union of India (2014) judgment.
He had warned that the Transgender (Amendment) Bill, 2026 deviates from this by reducing an inherent right to dignity, autonomy, and personhood into a state-mediated entitlement. “Bottom line being, selfhood is not a matter of concession, it is a matter of right,” he had said his earlier order.
“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 recognised by the Supreme Court as an inviolable aspect of personhood now risks being reduced to a contingent, state-mediated entitlement,” it had observed.
This 30 March opinion has now been omitted from the now-modified epilogue of 2 April. The revised version removed the broader observations on the Transgender (Amendment) Act and inserted a clarification to make clear the limited scope of the ruling.
The Rajasthan HC bench has directed the Rajasthan government to enforce the 30 March order, which had directed that until the government made a formal policy decision, transgender persons would receive a 3 per cent additional weightage in the maximum prescribed marks for selection in public employment and admissions to educational institutions under the state.
The case began when Ganga Kumari challenged a 12 January 2023 Rajasthan government notification which included transgender persons in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) list but failed to provide separate horizontal reservation.
Arguing that simply placing transgender persons in the OBC category was a “meaningless illusion”, Kumari argued that it forced individuals from SC/ST families to choose between their birth-based quota and the transgender quota, effectively granting them no additional benefit for their gender identity.
In its 30 March order, the Rajasthan HC bench agreed with the petitioner, holding that the impugned circular was a “mere facade and an eyewash”. The notification conferred no real reservation and simply “parrots” the Supreme Court’s recognition of transgender persons as socially and educationally backward without taking concrete affirmative action, the bench said.
The latest amendment in the Transgender Act does away with the right to self-perceived gender identity—taking away the right to self-determination or self-proclamation of being a third gender.
Passed by the Houses of Parliament on 24 and 25 March, the Bill received a lot of flak from the transgender community, and some members of the statutory National Council of Transgender Persons resigned.
In the updated order, Justice Monga said, “At the time of authoring the judgment, this court proceeded on the foundational premise articulated in NALSA judgment viz. 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, bottom line being, selfhood is not a matter of concession, it is a matter of right. Be that as it may, the directions in the main judgment have been passed as per the prevailing legal position on the date of the judgment and are meant to be complied with accordingly.”
“In this backdrop, the epilogue, therefore, is statement of facts in the process of changing legal landscape. The same is rather 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, is within the contours of the existing law as on the date of the judgment i.e. 30.03.2026,” it added.
The clarification ensures the judgement is enforced strictly as one granting relief to the petitioner in the facts of the case as it directs the Rajasthan government to act in accordance with the operative part of the judgment, delivered within the contours of the law that existed when the verdict was authored.
With the modified order, the high court has also guaranteed the implementation of its judgement passed before the Act became a law.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: UN body criticises India’s new transgender law, says it ‘risks setting back hard-won rights’