Rajasthan High Court Deletes Criticism Of Transgender Act Amendment In Its Epilogue To Judgment, Says Included “By Mistake”
The High Court removed portions of its earlier epilogue dealing with the implications of the Transgender Amendment Bill, clarifying that the deleted observations were inadvertently included and were not required.
The Rajasthan High Court has ordered the deletion of portions of the epilogue from its earlier judgment concerning transgender rights, holding that certain observations relating to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, were included inadvertently and were neither intended nor necessary.
The Court was considering a miscellaneous application seeking clarification regarding the status of the epilogue forming part of its judgment dated 30.03.2026.
A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit observed: “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”.
However, referring to parts of the epilogue that were ordered to be removed, the Bench added that “upon our re-reading of the epilogue, it appears that by mistake …the text was included therein, although it was neither intended nor necessary.”
In its earlier judgment, the Court had included an epilogue discussing the proposed amendment to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and its potential impact on the right to self-identification of gender.
The impugned portions of the epilogue had observed that “the subsequent amendment… marks a departure from that said constitutional baseline… legal recognition of gender identity shall be conditioned upon certification, scrutiny, or other forms of administrative endorsement.”
Additionally, the epilogue had contained broader observations cautioning the State to preserve the principle of self-identification and ensure that statutory developments do not dilute constitutional guarantees. The Court directed the deletion of the above portions.
After deleting the impugned portions, the Court directed the insertion of a limited clarificatory statement to contextualise the judgment. It held that the following text must be added: “Be that as it may, the aforesaid directions in the main judgment have been passed as per the prevailing legal position on the date of judgment and are meant to be complied with accordingly.”
The Court further reframed the scope of the epilogue, clarifying its limited purpose, stating that “the epilogue, therefore, is statement of facts in the process of changing legal landscape, … the same is rather a caveat that it remains open, and indeed, still incumbent upon the State of Rajasthan to ensure that any policy framework evolved pursuant to the directions, in the judgment above, is within the contours of the existing law as on the date of the judgment i.e. 30.03.2026.”
The Court also directed that the original judgment “be off-loaded from the official website… and the corrected order be uploaded.”
Advocate Vivek Mathur appeared on behalf of the appellants, while Advocate Deepak Chandak appeared for AAG B. L. Bhati
Cause Title: Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:15024-DB)
