Jodhpur: The Rajasthan high court on Thursday ordered the deletion of three paragraphs that criticised the recent amendments to the trangender rights act from a March 30 verdict, adding that the text in the epilogue was included by mistake and was neither intended nor necessary.
A division bench of justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit – who had passed the order while deciding a writ application filed by a transgender person – noted that certain portions had “inadvertently” been included in the epilogue of the earlier judgment.
“Upon our re-reading of the epilogue, it appears that by mistake the following text was included therein, although it was neither intended nor necessary,” the court said.
The court then ordered the deletion of three paragraphs that had discussed the implications of the proposed amendment to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The court had raised concerns over the recently passed law, observing that it removes the statutory 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 prioritise self-identification of gender in its policies , were made while deciding a petition filed by Ganga Kumari, a transgender person from Jalore district, who had challenged a Rajasthan government notification that included transgender persons in the other backward classes category without providing a separate framework for reservation.
{{/usCountry}}The comments, which also asked the Rajasthan government to prioritise self-identification of gender in its policies , were made while deciding a petition filed by Ganga Kumari, a transgender person from Jalore district, who had challenged a Rajasthan government notification that included transgender persons in the other backward classes category without providing a separate framework for reservation.
{{/usCountry}}All these observations stood deleted on Thursday.
The bench, however, rejected the request by petitioner Ganga Kumari that the epilogue should not be treated as part of the judgment or considered for precedential purposes. The bench observed, “Having heard 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 further directed that a new clarification be inserted in the epilogue. The order said: “Be that as it may, the 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.”
After making the corrections, the court clarified that the epilogue of its March 30 judgment will now record that while the judgment was being finalised, Parliament had passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. On the date of the judgment, however, the bill had not yet become law as it was still awaiting the assent of the President and formal notification. The court also directed that the earlier judgment dated March 30 be removed from the official website of the high court. A corrected version incorporating the revised epilogue is to be uploaded.