'By Mistake': Rajasthan HC Erases Sharp Critique of Transgender Bill from Landmark Judgment

In a swift correction, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has ordered the deletion of controversial paragraphs from the epilogue of its March 30, 2026, judgment in a transgender rights case. A bench of Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit ruled that the critical remarks on the freshly passed Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026—described as added "by mistake"—were neither intended nor necessary. The move came via D.B. Writ Misc Application No. 168/2026 filed by petitioner Ganga Kumari against the State of Rajasthan and others, amid media buzz over the court's initial observations.

From Reservations Push to Bill Backlash

The saga began with Ganga Kumari's petition seeking reservations for transgender persons in education and public employment—a glaring gap in Rajasthan's policy landscape. On March 30, 2026, the court issued directions grounded in the Supreme Court's NALSA v. Union of India precedent, affirming transgender self-identification as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21. But as the judgment was finalized, Parliament passed the Amendment Bill (awaiting presidential assent that day), proposing to scrap Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act, which enshrined self-perceived gender identity.

The original epilogue appended sharp commentary, warning that the Bill risked reducing Supreme Court-recognized personhood rights to "State-mediated entitlements." Reports from Bar and Bench highlighted phrases like the Bill conditioning recognition on "certification, scrutiny, or other forms of administrative endorsement," potentially diluting constitutional guarantees. The bench urged Rajasthan to craft inclusive policies preserving self-identification "within the contours of the amended law."

The 'Mistake' Application and Heated Arguments

Learned counsel Mr. Vivek Mathur for the petitioner argued against severing the epilogue from the main judgment for precedential value. On the other side, Mr. Deepak Chandak (for Additional Advocate General Mr. B.L. Bhati ) likely pressed for corrections, though specifics remain unelaborated in the order.

The bench rejected detaching the epilogue entirely: "Having heard learned counsel... we are not persuaded to accept the submission that the epilogue dated 30.03.2026 should not be read as part of the judgment... for precedential purposes." Yet, it zeroed in on the "mistaken" text, ordering its excision while adding: "Be that as it may, the aforesaid directions in the main judgment have been passed as per the prevailing legal position on the date of judgment and are meant to be complied with accordingly."

NALSA's Shadow and the Shifting Legal Terrain

The court's reasoning pivoted on NALSA (2014) , where the Supreme Court declared gender self-identification an "intrinsic facet of dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty." The original epilogue framed the Amendment Bill as a "departure from that said constitutional baseline," but post-deletion, it neutrally notes the Bill's aim to omit self-perceived identity rights. This preserves the main judgment's enforceability under pre-amendment law, directing Rajasthan to align future policies without procedural hurdles eroding rights.

Media coverage, including Bar and Bench reports, noted the Bill's passage amid opposition calls for a Select Committee review, with President Droupadi Murmu's assent following soon after. The correction ensures the judgment withstands "constitutional conscience" scrutiny.

Key Observations Straight from the Bench

  • On the mistaken inclusion : "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."
  • Affirming the epilogue's role : "The epilogue... is more of a caveat that it remains open... to ensure that any policy framework... preserves... the principle of self-identification, within the contours of the amended law." (Pre-deletion context)
  • Revised epilogue stance : "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."
  • Procedural directive : "The order/judgment dated 30.03.2026... be off-loaded from the official website... and corrected order be uploaded."

A Clean Slate: Implications for Transgender Policy

The April 2 order disposes of the application, uploading a sanitized epilogue that frames the Bill as a "statement of facts in the process of changing legal landscape." Practically, it mandates compliance with the original directions—pushing reservations—under the law as of March 30, leaving room for Rajasthan to adapt post-amendment.

This nuanced retreat shields the judgment from Bill-related challenges while signaling judicial caution on evolving statutes. For transgender litigants, it reinforces NALSA 's core but ties future wins to statutory flux, potentially spurring policy innovations in other states to balance certification with inclusion.