The Rajasthan High Court has withdrawn its recent comments that were perceived as critical of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 which was passed by parliament last month [Ganga Kumari v State of Rajasthan]

A Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit had earlier said in its judgment that the new law risks turning “an inviolable aspect of personhood” into a State-mediated entitlement for transgender persons

"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 Court had said in an epilogue attached with the judgment passed on March 30.

However, in an order passed on April 02, the Court said that its views on March 30 were neither necessary nor intended and were added "by mistake".

"Upon our re-reading of the epilogue, it appears that by mistake the following text was included," the Bench said, while ordering deletion of various paras of the epilogue.

The Court had made the observations on March 30 while dealing with a petition filed by a transgender person over lack of reservation for transgender individuals in educational institutions and public employment.

The Bench had clarified that its judgment proceeded on the foundational premise articulated in the NALSA judgment, 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.

It had also said that even in the altered legal landscape, any policy framework devised by the State must be careful and it must strive to preserve, to the fullest extent possible, the constitutional guarantee by extending affirmative measures of reservation.

"The State, as a constitutional actor, is expected to adopt an approach that harmonises 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 marginalisation that transgender persons continue to endure," the Bench had said.

The Court's views were hailed by many people, particularly transgender persons.

However, these observations have now been deleted by the Court from the judgment uploaded on the official website.

The order for deletion of the comments was passed after an application was moved before the Court. The Court rejected the argument that the epilogue should not be read as a part of the judgment.

"Having heard learned counsel and perused the application, we are not persuaded to accept the submission that the epilogue dated 30.03.2026 should not be read as part of the judgment of the same date or be not treated as part thereof for precedential purposes. Accordingly, no such orders are warranted in that regard," the Bench said.

However, despite holding that the epilogue forms part of the judgment, the Court directed that it be corrected, removing most of its comments.

[Read Order]