Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court on Thursday ordered three paragraphs criticizing the recent amendments to the Transgender Rights Act to be deleted from the March 30 ruling, adding that the text in the conclusion was included mistakenly and was neither intended nor necessary.
A division bench of Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit – who passed the order while deciding a writ petition filed by a transgender person – observed that certain portions had been “inadvertently” included in the conclusion of the earlier judgment.
“When we reread the conclusion, it appears that the following text was included in it by mistake, even though it was neither intended nor necessary,” the court said.
The court then ordered the deletion of three paragraphs that discussed the implications of the proposed amendment to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The court raised concerns about the recently passed law, observing that it abolishes legal recognition of a transgender person’s right to self-perceived gender identity and risks reducing a fundamental aspect of personhood to a state-controlled process.
The comments, which also asked the Rajasthan government to prioritize gender self-identification in its policies, were made while deciding the petition filed by Ganga Kumari, a transgender person from Jalore district, who challenged the Rajasthan government’s notification that included transgender people in the Other Backward Classes category without providing a separate framework for reservation.
All of these notes were deleted on Thursday.
However, the bench rejected petitioner Ganga Kumari’s request not to treat the conclusion as part of the judgment or consider it for prior purposes. The bench observed, “After hearing the counsel and perusing the application, we are not persuaded to accept the plea that the conclusion dated 30.03.2026 should not be read as part of the judgment passed on the same date or treated as part thereof for earlier purposes. Accordingly, there is no justification for such orders in this regard.”
The Council also directed that a new clarification be included in the conclusion. “Be that as it may, the directions contained in the lead judgment were given in accordance with the legal position prevailing on the date of the judgment and are intended to be adhered to accordingly,” the order said.
After making the corrections, the court clarified that the conclusion of its judgment of 30 March would now record that while the judgment was in its final form, Parliament had passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill 2026. However, on the date of the judgment, the bill had not yet become law as it was still awaiting Presidential assent and formal notification. The court also ordered the removal of the previous ruling dated March 30 from the official website of the Supreme Court. A corrected version will be uploaded including the revised conclusion.
