Rajasthan HC Strikes Down 'Eyewash' OBC Tag for Transgenders, Paves Way for Real Affirmative Action

In a landmark ruling, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has declared the state's 2023 notification lumping transgender persons (TGs) into the Other Backward Classes (OBC) list as a "mere facade" that delivers no substantive benefits. A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit directed the formation of a high-level committee to devise targeted welfare measures and granted interim 3% additional marks to TGs in public jobs and education admissions. The decision in Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan enforces the Supreme Court's 2014 NALSA mandate, bridging ancient cultural reverence for gender diversity with modern constitutional protections.

From Sacred Scriptures to Street Exclusion: Ganga's Battle

Petitioner Ganga Kumari , a 29-year-old transgender woman from Jalore, Rajasthan, has been a persistent voice for her community's rights. This writ petition challenges a January 12, 2023, notification by the Rajasthan Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, which added TGs at serial no. 92 in the OBC list—purportedly complying with prior court orders but without separate reservations.

Ganga's legal journey began with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10672/2021, seeking 1% horizontal reservation in police services. The court in 2022 directed the state to implement NALSA swiftly, allowing her to participate in selections. A contempt petition followed, closed after the notification, but Ganga argued it was illusory. An earlier writ was withdrawn for better data; now armed with 2011 census figures (TG population: ~16,517 or 0.024% of Rajasthan's total), she pressed for horizontal quotas.

The core questions: Does OBC subsumption fulfill NALSA 's directive to treat TGs as "socially and educationally backward" and extend "all kinds of reservation"? And does it disadvantage TGs from SC/ST/OBC backgrounds by overriding superior quotas?

Petitioner's Cry: 'Separate Slots or Nothing' vs State's 'We've Done Enough'

Ganga's counsel, Vivek Mathur , hammered the notification's flaws. It forces TGs from reserved families into a Hobson's choice: forgo birth-based SC/ST/OBC benefits for a diluted OBC tag or stick with originals sans TG-specific aid. No TG has benefited post-notification, per state data—a "meaningless illusion." Citing NALSA v. Union of India ((2014) 5 SCC 438), he demanded horizontal reservations like Karnataka (1% across categories) and Tamil Nadu, arguing TGs form a distinct class facing unique stigma, not a caste.

Respondents, led by AAGs Deepak Chandak and Piyush Bhandari , defended: Policy structuring is executive turf; NALSA is satisfied by OBC inclusion and welfare like Transgender UtthanKosh Guidelines, skill training (44 TGs trained, 22 employed). Horizontal quotas need data they lack; a similar Supreme Court plea (W.P. 461/2025) pendency warrants dismissal. Judicial overreach can't mandate quotas.

Peeling the Facade: Why OBC Tag Fails Constitutional Scrutiny

The Bench dissected the paradox: India's scriptures venerate figures like Ardhanarishvara and Mohini, yet TGs endure ridicule. NALSA recognized them as "third gender," mandating reservations as backward classes—distinct from binaries. The 2019 Transgender Persons Act reinforces inclusion via Section 8 welfare duties.

Key flaw: OBC subsumption extinguishes pre-existing SC/ST benefits without opt-out, harming doubly marginalized TGs. At 0.024% population, standalone horizontal quotas would be logistically unviable (rare roster points). But inaction abdicates NALSA 's command. Courts can't craft quotas, yet must prod policy.

Notably, the judgment's epilogue flagged the freshly passed Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, 2026 (pending assent then), cautioning against diluting self-identification. Later clarified April 2, 2026, via misc. application—deleting "mistaken" critiques as non-essential—the updated version stresses compliance with law as on March 30, 2026, amid evolving statutes.

Precedents like NALSA (core directive) and state models (Karnataka Rules, 2021: 1% horizontal) guided, emphasizing substantive equality over tokenism.

Key Observations

"The impugned circular is a mere facade and an eyewash. As it seems to be an exercise in form without substance. It confers no real reservation whatsoever."

"Transgender persons belonging shall henceforth be granted 3% additional weightage in the maximum prescribed marks for purposes of selection and appointment... and admission to educational institutions."

"By recognising TGs as third gender, this Court is not only upholding the rule of law but also advancing justice to the class, so far deprived of their legitimate natural and constitutional rights." ( NALSA , quoted extensively)

"TGs belonging to SC/ST/SEBC do not get any real benefit by being declared as OBC... results in a manifestly anomalous and adverse consequence."

Committee, Weightage, and a Nudge to Lawmakers: Implications Unfold

The petition succeeded: quash OBC notification impliedly critiqued; state must form a committee (Principal Secretary-led, with activists/TG reps) for data-driven measures on compounded marginalization. Interim: 3% mark weightage across categories in state jobs, PSUs, and education—practical affirmative action sans quota chaos.

This balances judicial restraint (no quota dictation) with equity push. Future impact: Spurs Rajasthan to emulate Karnataka/Tamil Nadu; monitors NALSA nationwide amid 2026 amendments shifting from self-ID. For Ganga's community, it's tangible hope—marks boost access, committee promises tailored policy—translating rhetoric into roster reality.