'Transgender Rights Must Not Become Illusory': Rajasthan HC On Trans Bill
Rajasthan High Court warns against making transgender rights illusory under new Bill.
advertisement
The Rajasthan High Court has cautioned that the rights of transgender persons must not become illusory, particularly in light of the recently passed Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. The court observed that the Bill, which awaits Presidential assent, could undermine the right to self-perceived gender identity by introducing state-mediated certification and administrative scrutiny.
As reported by Bar and Bench, a Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit stated that legal recognition of gender identity should not be reduced to a contingent entitlement dependent on state approval. The court was addressing a petition concerning the lack of reservation for transgender individuals in educational institutions and public employment.
The Bench clarified that its judgment was grounded in the Supreme Court’s NALSA decision, which established the right to self-identify one’s gender as intrinsic to dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. Analysis showed that the court emphasised, “Selfhood is not a matter of concession, it is a matter of right.”
The court explained that the concept of gender is not binary and that transgender persons have a fundamental right to self-determination. It further stated that any policy framework devised by the state must preserve constitutional guarantees and extend affirmative measures, such as reservation, to address systemic marginalisation.
"Recognition of gender identity is a fundamental right," the Bench stated, highlighting the need for tangible dismantling of systemic disadvantage faced by transgender persons.
In its review of a Rajasthan government notification classifying transgender persons as Other Backward Class (OBC) without separate reservation, the court found that this move had not benefited any transgender person to date. The notification, according to coverage revealed, effectively subsumed and extinguished pre-existing reservation entitlements for those born into Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, or Socially and Educationally Backward Class families.
The Bench described the notification as an exercise in form without substance, stating that it conferred no real reservation and merely reiterated what had already been declared by the Supreme Court. The court directed the state to conduct a comprehensive study through a committee including senior officials, social activists, and transgender community representatives to assess compounded marginalisation and recommend measures for substantive equality. Reporting indicated that, until a policy decision is made, transgender persons from SC/ST/SEBC/OBC/open categories should receive 3% additional weightage in selection and admission processes for state posts and educational institutions.
The court also instructed that any future policy framework must preserve the principle of self-identification to the fullest extent possible, even within the contours of the amended law. It cautioned that statutory developments should not dilute constitutional guarantees, and the state must ensure that procedural requirements do not render transgender rights ineffective as details emerged.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.