The Rajasthan High Court on Monday, March 30 expressed serious concerns over the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, observing that the proposed law may undermine the fundamental right of individuals to self-identify their gender.
The Bill, which has been passed by Parliament and is currently awaiting Presidential assent, seeks to introduce new criteria for legally recognising transgender persons, including certification and administrative scrutiny.
A Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit questioned the constitutional validity of such provisions, noting that they could dilute a right already recognised by the Supreme Court.
The observations were made while the court was hearing a petition filed by a transgender individual seeking reservation in educational institutions and public employment.
“It is now proposed that legal recognition of gender identity shall be conditioned upon certification, scrutiny, or other forms of administrative endorsement. What was recognised by the Supreme Court as an inviolable aspect of personhood now risks being reduced to a contingent, State-mediated entitlement,” the Bench observed.
The court reiterated that the right to self-identify one’s gender is intrinsic to dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty, as upheld in the landmark NALSA v. Union of India judgement. It emphasised that gender identity is a personal and fundamental right, and not something contingent upon State approval.
The Bench further stated that the rule of law requires that legislative and executive frameworks must align with constitutional values and not merely procedural legality.
“The State, as a constitutional actor, is expected to adopt an approach that harmonises statutory compliance with constitutional congruity, ensuring that the rights of transgender persons are not rendered illusory by procedural constraints,” the court said.
Highlighting the lived realities of marginalisation faced by transgender persons, the court added that the true test of such laws lies in their ability to dismantle systemic barriers rather than reinforce them.
In its concluding remarks, the Bench underscored the core constitutional principle at stake. “Bottomline being, selfhood is not a matter of concession, it is a matter of right,” Justice Monga said.
The court made it clear that identity cannot be reduced to a matter of administrative approval and must remain a protected constitutional guarantee.
Read: ‘This Bill is nothing but erasure’: How India’s new Trans amendment could undo decades of rights