The Rajasthan High Court has deleted portions of its recent remarks that were critical of the 2026 Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Amendment Bill, reported Bar and Bench on Friday.
On Monday, the court, in an epilogue attached to a judgement, had said that the bill, which received presidential assent the same day, removed the right to self-perceived gender identity guaranteed under the 2019 Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act.
The amendment “marks a departure from that constitutional baseline”, Justice Arun Monga had said in the epilogue.
“It is now proposed that legal recognition of gender identity shall be conditioned upon certification, scrutiny or other forms of administrative endorsement,” he had added.
In an order passed on Thursday, the court said that these views were neither necessary nor intended and had been added “by mistake”, reported Bar and Bench.
The 2026 Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Amendment Bill was cleared by Parliament on March 25 after a motion to refer the proposed legislation to a select parliamentary committee was rejected.
Introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 13, the legislation amends the 2019 Act by redefining who qualifies as a transgender person.
It removes transgender persons’ right to a self-perceived gender identity and limits the scope of the law to those with certain biological or physiological characteristics, intersex variations, or specific socio-cultural identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta.
The Monday’s order came on a petition filed by a transgender person challenging a 2023 notification issued by the Rajasthan government declaring transgender persons as Other Backward Classes without providing separate reservations.
The petition noted the lack of reservations for transgender persons in educational institutions and government jobs.
The court directed the state government to form a committee to identify the extent of marginalisation suffered by transgender persons and to recommend measures.
It also asked the state to provide an additional 3% weightage in marks to transgender persons in matters of selection and appointment to state government posts, as well as in admissions to educational institutions.
On Thursday, the court said that the main judgement, passed based on the legal position at the time, should be complied with, Live Law reported.
It added that the state has a duty to ensure that any policy framework evolved in response to the directions remains within the contours of existing law.
The court also rejected an application that the epilogue should not be read as a part of the judgement, reported Bar and Bench. However, it deleted three paragraphs of the epilogue and replaced them with two new ones.
Among the paragraphs that have been deleted is one that spoke about gender identity being recognised as an “inviolable aspect of personhood” by the Supreme Court and the amendment law reducing it to a “contingent, state-mediated entitlement”.
The bench had also stated that the state must ensure that the policy, evolved after the court’s directions, preserves the principle of self-identification to the fullest extent possible, while being within the contours of the amended law.
“Any framework, be it legislative or executive, the rule of law demands that such measures must withstand scrutiny not merely of legality, but of constitutional conscience,” the bench had said in the now-deleted portions. “…The true measure lies in the tangible dismantling of systemic marginalisation that transgender persons continue to endure.”
Provisions of the amendment
The new legislation passed on March 25 will make medical evaluation and certification mandatory for legal gender recognition. It underlines that the authority to permit such transitions is vested in medical professionals operating under a medical board.
The bill also introduces graded punishments based on the severity of offences, increasing the maximum penalty to up to 14 years from what was two years under the 2019 law.
It further specifies that those who have been “compelled” to assume, adopt or outwardly present a transgender identity under “undue influence” will not be covered under the law.
It emphasises that the law is intended to protect a defined class of persons facing “extreme and oppressive” discrimination and not all “persons with various gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities”.
Also read:
Why right to self-determination is essential to improving employment and education among transpeople
Changes to trans rights act will worsen access to healthcare for vulnerable individuals
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!