‘By mistake’: Rajasthan HC deletes comments in judgement critical of Transgender Bill 2026

The Rajasthan High Court reportedly withdrew its recent comments that were perceived as critical of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.

The bill was recently passed in Parliament amid the Opposition's demand that it be sent to the Select Committee. President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the Bill on March 30.

"It is now proposed that legal recognition of gender identity shall be conditioned upon certification, scrutiny, or other forms of administrative endorsement," the court had said in an epilogue attached with the judgment passed on March 30, as per Bar and Bench.

"What was recognised by the Supreme Court as an inviolable aspect of personhood now risks being reduced to a contingent, State-mediated entitlement," it added.

The Court had reportedly 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 then 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.

According to Bar and Bench, 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 observations made on March 30 were deleted by the Court from the judgment uploaded on the official website, Bar and Bench reported.

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.

"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.

"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 reportedly said.

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