The Rajasthan High Court has revised the epilogue of its recent judgment on transgender reservation, removing certain critical observations it had made on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit declined to delete the epilogue entirely but acknowledged that some portions were included inadvertently and were not essential to the case.

Court removes ‘inadvertent’ observations

“The court has clarified and ordered the removal of certain text which it said was included by mistake and was neither intended nor necessary,” said Vivek Mathur, counsel for a 29-year-old transgender petitioner who had sought clarification.

The revision comes just three days after the court’s 30 March ruling on a petition challenging a 2023 state notification that placed transgender persons within the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category without providing a distinct reservation framework.

Earlier remarks on amendment withdrawn

In its original judgment, the High Court had appended an epilogue expressing concern that the 2026 amendment departed from the constitutional principle of self-perceived gender identity, as recognised by the Supreme Court.

ALSO READ | ‘Where do we go now?’ A trans woman’s question as India rewrites identity law

The now-deleted sections had cautioned that making legal gender recognition subject to certification or administrative scrutiny could reduce an intrinsic aspect of identity to a state-controlled process. The court had also warned that such statutory changes might dilute constitutional protections and render transgender rights ineffective through procedural barriers.

Revised tone, key principles retained

In the revised order, the court adopted a more restrained tone, describing the amendment as part of an evolving legal landscape. It clarified that the observations removed were not necessary for deciding the case and that the core directions of the judgment remain unchanged.

At the same time, the bench reaffirmed that the right to self-identify one’s gender is a fundamental aspect of dignity, autonomy and personal liberty under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. It emphasised that selfhood is a matter of right, not concession.

Directions to state remain unchanged

The court further directed that any policy framework formulated by the Rajasthan government must align with the legal position as it stood on 30 March 2026, the date of the original ruling.

ALSO READ | ‘Transgender amendment redefines who gets to say THIS IS WHO I AM’

Importantly, the substantive directions of the judgment remain intact. These include granting transgender candidates an additional 3 per cent weightage in marks in public employment and educational admissions, as well as the formation of a committee to examine their marginalisation and recommend an appropriate reservation framework.

Background to the amendment

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed by the Lok Sabha on 24 March and cleared by the Rajya Sabha a day later. It received presidential assent on 30 March.

The High Court has also directed that the earlier version of its judgment be replaced with the corrected order.