Critique to Caution: Rajasthan HC on Transgender Amendment Bill 2026

The Rajasthan High Court recently made headlines by taking back some remarks made against the Transgender Bill 2026. The Rajasthan High Court was dealing with a case pertaining to a State Government notification and a question of reservation for transgender persons. While the judgment was reserved, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 came to be passed by the Parliament. Therefore, Justice Arun Monga chose to speak his heart out on how the Bill misaligned Constitutional values. However, since it became an Act following the President’s assent, the Court sought to retreat. Find out the details of what all happened in the last few days which sparked a discussion on the scope of judicial voice. 

Horizontal Reservation for Transgenders

The matter sprouted with a 29-year-old transgender woman working as a police constable. She challenged a notification dated 12th January 12, 2023, which included transgender persons in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) list. The notification lacked a separate horizontal reservation for transgenders. It was argued that simply placing transgender persons in the OBC category was a "meaningless illusion," as it forced individuals from SC/ST families to choose between their birth-based quota and the transgender quota. Eventually, there was no scope for additional benefit for their gender identity. 

Ganga Kumari vs State of Rajasthan PDF

On 30th March, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit upheld rights of transgender persons. The Rajasthan High Court ruled that the State Government's classification of transgender people within the OBC category for reservations was a "mere facade and an eyewash" that "confers no real reservation whatsoever." The Court directed that until a formal policy decision is taken, transgender persons shall be granted 3% additional weightage in maximum prescribed marks for selection in public employment and admissions to educational institutions under the State. The Bench further directed the State government to constitute a committee, preferably headed by the Principal Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare, to conduct a detailed inquiry into marginalization of transgender persons and recommend a workable framework for substantive equality. 

Timeline of Rajasthan HC Transgender Case

Looking at the timeline, the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment was reserved on 24th February, and all set to be passed on 30th March, 2026. However, the same Parliament happened to pass the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 by that time, which was yet to become an Act. Therefore, Justice Arun Monga added an epilogue to share some thoughts on the Transgender Amendment Bill 2026. The said Bill received the President’s assent on 30th March, 2026. Thereafter, another order dated 2nd April, 2026 followed in Ganga Kumari vs State of Rajasthan to delete some part of the remarks made in the epilogue regarding the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. 

The Epilogue Which Attracted Eyeballs

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 had been passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on 24th and 25th March respectively, awaiting Presidential assent on the day of the judgment. The Parliament passed the Transgender Persons Bill, seeking to change the definition of transgender to a "medicalised" version. Justice Monga chose not to ignore this seismic legal development, as the ink was being put to paper.  Its central feature was the proposed omission of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the 2019 Act. The provision that guaranteed the right to self-perceived gender identity, seeks to replace with a system requiring medical certification and administrative scrutiny. 

The epilogue, as originally written, did not mince words. Justice Monga warned that the Bill departed from the "constitutional baseline" established in the landmark NALSA vs Union of India (2014) judgment. The major factor was confining legal recognition of gender identity to "certification, scrutiny, or other forms of administrative endorsement". This sought to reduce what the Supreme Court had recognized as an inviolable aspect of personhood into a contingent, State-mediated entitlement. 

Justice Arun Monga highlighted that any policy framework by the State should strive to preserve the constitutional guarantee by extending reservations and should adopt a harmonizing approach. The Bench further stated that statutory developments could not be implemented in such a way as to dilute constitutional guarantees. Justice Monga declared: "Selfhood is not a matter of concession, it is a matter of right." 

The Corrigendum: Taking Back What Was Said

On April 2, 2026, the same Bench issued an order, a corrigendum. The reason as per reports was an application submitted by the petitioner's counsel, who wanted the epilogue to not be treated as part of the original judgment. The Rajasthan High Court rejected that submission to clarify that the epilogue would remain part of the judgment. However, the Bench then proceeded to delete some parts of the very text it had written. 

The bench declared that the following passages from the epilogue had been included "by mistake" and were "neither intended nor necessary". The paragraphs stating that the Amendment Bill marked a "departure from the constitutional baseline," that gender identity recognition now risked becoming a "State-mediated entitlement," that the State must be "mindful that statutory developments cannot be implemented in a manner that dilutes constitutional guarantees," and the broader call for harmonising "statutory compliance with constitutional congruity." 

In place of this constitutional critique, the Rajasthan High Court took back what was said, in a restrained formulation through this corrigendum to the epilogue. The revised epilogue simply notes the factual reality of the changing legal landscape. 

Why Did the Court Retreat?

The reason stated by the High Court that the passages were included "by mistake" raises more questions than it answers. People have pointed at several possible explanations, the most technical explanation being on its timing. President Droupadi Murmu assented to the Bill on 30th March, but after the judgment was passed. Since the Bill was not yet law when the judgment was authored, the Court's critique was directed at a Bill, which was yet to become an Act. Courts have refrained from adjudicating Bills, since they have no binding legal force. By removing the critique and clarifying that the directions were grounded in the law as of 30th March 30, the Bench prevented its judgment from criticism of opining on a matter not strictly before it. 

There is also the question of judicial propriety and scope. The petition was about Rajasthan's OBC notification. The Amendment Bill was a Central legislation entirely outside the factual matrix of the case. A Court's epilogue, while not strictly operative, carries significant persuasive weight and can be cited as precedent. By characterizing those paragraphs as a "mistake," the court signaled that it had ventured beyond its proper domain. 

The clarification ensures the judgment is enforced as one granting relief to the petitioner in the facts of the case, directing 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 judgment passed before the Act became a law.