[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganga Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 April, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:15024-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Writ Misc Application No. 168/2026
Ganga Kumari D/o Bhika Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of
Jakhari, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And
Empowerment, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
5. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
02/04/2026
1. 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.
2. However, 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, viz:
"3. The subsequent amendment to the Transgender Persons (Protection of
Rights) Act, 2019, however, marks a departure from that said constitutional
baseline. It is now proposed that legal recognition of gender identity shall be
conditioned upon certification, scrutiny, or other forms of administrative
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 11:08:08 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15024-DB] (2 of 3) [WMAP-168/2026]
endorsement. What was recognized by the Supreme Court as an inviolable
aspect of personhood now risks being reduced to a contingent, State-
mediated entitlement.
4. In this backdrop, the epilogue, therefore, is more of 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, preserves, to the fullest extent possible, the principle of self-
identification, within the contours of the amended law, of course. The State
must be mindful that statutory developments cannot be implemented in a
manner that dilutes constitutional guarantees. The comparative models,
including those adopted by other States, may yet be structured in a manner
that advances inclusion without subjecting identity to impermissible
constraints.
5. 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. 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 State, as a constitutional actor, is
expected to adopt an approach that harmonizes 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 marginalization that transgender persons
continue to endure."
3. We, therefore, order the deletion of aforesaid text.
4. Further, we are of the opinion that, after deleting the above
text, the following text ought to be added in the epilogue:
"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."
5. The corrected epilogue shall thus now be read as under:
"EPILOGUE
1. While the judgment, as above, was being finalized, but
just before its release, Parliament passed the Transgender
Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, (on
the date of judgment it was yet to become An Act as it
was pending assent of Hon'ble the President of India and
to be enforced/promulgated). It is proposed therein that
sub section (2), i.e. right to self-perceived gender identity,
in section 4 of the Principal Act shall be omitted. Thus,
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 11:08:08 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15024-DB] (3 of 3) [WMAP-168/2026]
the proposed Bill seeks to amend the 2019 Act by taking
away the right to self-determination or self-proclamation
of being a third gender.
2. At the time of authoring the judgment, ibid, this Court
proceeded on the foundational premise articulated in
NALSA judgment viz. 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, bottom-line being, selfhood is not a matter
of concession, it is a matter of right.
3. Be that as it may, the directions in the main judgment
have been passed as per the prevailing legal position on
the date of the judgment and are meant to be complied
with accordingly.
4. In this backdrop, 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."
6. So far as the order/judgment dated 30.03.2026 is
concerned, the same be off-loaded from the official website of the
High Court and hard copy of the same be kept in 'D' part of the
record and corrected order be uploaded.
7. The application is thus disposed of.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
1-Devanshi/-
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 11:08:08 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
