2026 Supreme(Raj) 356

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Monga, Yogendra Kumar Purohit, JJ.
Ganga Kumari D/o Bhika Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur - Respondent 
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1358 of 2025
Decided On : 30-03-2026

Constitutional protection for marginalized gender-diverse groups requires substantive affirmative action rather than tokenistic classification. When policies fail to provide empirical benefits, the state is mandated to conduct evidence-based assessments and implement concrete measures to achieve parity in public employment and academic access.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 - Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 - Section 8 - Welfare measures and social inclusion - Right to self-identification of gender - Principles of horizontal reservation - Judicial review of administrative policy - Need for empirical data and committee-based decision making.

(B) Administrative Law - Policy formulation and constitutional mandate - When a administrative classification is made, it must not be merely illusory or a formalistic facade - Mere inclusion of a marginalized, gender-diverse group into a pre-existing backward social category without tangible benefit fails the test of substantive equality. (Paras 27, 30, 31)

(C) Reservation Policy - Proportionality principle - Horizontal reservation versus vertical reservation - The court cannot supersede executive policy formulation but can direct the authority to conduct detailed studies and evolve frameworks to achieve constitutional goals. (Paras 25, 32, 34)

Facts of the case:
A petitioner, belonging to a gender-diverse community, challenged a government notification that placed the entire community into a specific social category for backward classes, arguing that it failed to address the systemic societal marginalization and lacked the necessary horizontal reservation to ensure effective representation in public employment and educational institutions.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the existing governmental notification provided no substantial benefit and functioned as an ineffective measure. It held that the governing authority must take concrete, empirical action to translate constitutional safeguards into tangible outcomes for the marginalized group.

Issues: Whether the inclusion of a gender-diverse, vulnerable class in an existing backward category satisfies constitutional mandates; whether it is permissible for the court to intervene in policy matters to ensure horizontal reservation instead of vertical classification to address historical deprivation.

Ratio Decidendi: Meaningful protection of human rights requires more than mere formal recognition; it necessitates affirmative action that addresses systemic exclusion. When policy initiatives are empirically demonstrated to have provided no benefits to a vulnerable class, limited judicial intervention, by mandating comprehensive study and providing interim relief, is justified to uphold constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions to constitute a committee for evidence-based policy formation and an interim order granting 3% additional weightage in marks for selection and admissions.