The Rajasthan High Court has delivered a landmark ruling affirming that merely classifying transgender persons as Other Backward Classes (OBC) without providing horizontal reservation fails to fulfill the constitutional mandate under the NALSA v. Union of India judgment. The Court struck down the State’s notification as an empty formality and ordered immediate interim relief and a structured policy review to ensure substantive equality.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ganga Kumari, a transgender individual, challenged a notification dated 12.01.2023 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, which included the transgender community as Entry No. 92 in the State’s list of Other Backward Classes (OBC). The petitioner contended that this classification did not constitute meaningful reservation and effectively nullified the Supreme Court’s directive in NALSA v. Union of India (2014) to extend "all kinds of reservation" to transgender persons in education and public employment.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is a transgender person from Jalore district, Rajasthan.
- On 14.02.2022, the Rajasthan High Court, in Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan (DB CW Petn. No. 10672/2021), directed the State to implement reservation for transgender persons within four months, citing NALSA.
- On 12.01.2023, the State issued the impugned notification, adding transgender persons to the OBC list without creating a separate horizontal reservation category.
- The petitioner filed a contempt petition (1211/2022) for non-compliance, which was dismissed on 18.08.2023 on the ground that the notification had been issued.
- The petitioner subsequently filed another writ petition (DB CW Petn. No. 8242/2024), which was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars.
- The 2011 Census recorded Rajasthan’s transgender population at 16,517 (0.024% of total population), estimated to be approximately 23,000 as of 2023.
- The State’s OBC reservation is 21%, covering approximately 52% of the population.
- The State admitted in its affidavit that no transgender person had benefited from the impugned notification since its issuance.
- The State had issued the Transgender UtthanKosh Guidelines, 2021, providing welfare schemes but no reservation.
- The State had provided vocational training to 44 transgender persons and employment to 22.
Procedural History
- 14.02.2022: Division Bench of Rajasthan HC directs State to implement reservation for transgender persons within four months.
- 12.01.2023: State issues notification including transgender persons in OBC list (Entry No. 92).
- 18.08.2023: Contempt petition dismissed by Division Bench, holding notification complies with earlier order.
- 2024: Petitioner files DB CW Petn. No. 8242/2024 challenging the notification; dismissed with liberty to file fresh petition.
- 12.06.2025: Fresh petition (DB CW Petn. No. 1358/2025) filed.
- 20.11.2025: Court directs State to submit data on beneficiaries under the notification.
- 30.03.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The notification is a legal fiction. It subsumes transgender persons within OBC, forcing those from SC/ST/SEBC backgrounds to forfeit more beneficial existing reservations. It denies horizontal reservation, violating NALSA’s mandate for "all kinds of reservation" and ignores the distinct identity of transgender persons as a third gender. The State’s inaction renders the notification meaningless.
Respondents’ Position: Transgender persons are already entitled to OBC benefits under the notification. Reservation policy is a legislative/executive domain. Judicial intervention to mandate horizontal reservation is beyond the scope of Article 226. The State has implemented welfare schemes, and the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court in Kiran A.R. v. Union of India.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the notification dated 12.01.2023.
- A direction to implement horizontal reservation of 1% in all categories of public employment and education.
- Recognition of transgender identity as a distinct class for reservation purposes.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State’s inclusion of transgender persons within the OBC category, without providing a separate horizontal reservation, satisfies the Supreme Court’s directive in NALSA v. Union of India to extend "all kinds of reservation" to transgender persons as a distinct third gender.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that NALSA recognized transgender persons as a distinct socio-cultural and gender-based class, not a caste-based group. Subsuming them within OBC violates the principle of intersectionality, as transgender persons from SC/ST/SEBC backgrounds are forced to choose between two identities, losing the benefit of the more advantageous category. The State’s admission that no one has benefited from the notification proves its futility. The Court must enforce NALSA’s mandate, as done by Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, which have implemented horizontal reservation. The impugned notification is arbitrary, violates Article 14, and reduces a constitutional right to a symbolic gesture.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that the State has complied with NALSA by including transgender persons in the OBC list, thereby granting them access to existing vertical reservations. Reservation structuring is a policy matter beyond judicial review under Article 226. The State has implemented welfare schemes, including skill development and scholarships. The pending Supreme Court case on NEET-PG admissions raises identical issues, warranting judicial restraint. The petitioner’s claim lacks empirical data to justify a separate horizontal quota.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by rejecting the respondents’ contention that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court, noting that the pending case concerns NEET-PG admissions, not State-level reservation policy. It also held that the dismissal of the contempt petition did not constitute adjudication on the legality of the notification.
The Court emphasized that NALSA did not merely direct the State to classify transgender persons as OBC. It mandated the extension of "all kinds of reservation" - a phrase that includes horizontal reservation as a distinct mechanism to ensure proportional representation for a numerically small but severely marginalized group.
"The impugned circular is a mere facade and an eyewash. It confers no real reservation whatsoever; it simply parrots what already stands declared by the Supreme Court... devoid of any concrete affirmative action, is merely illusory and falls short of the reservation mandated by the Supreme Court."
The Court acknowledged the State’s argument that horizontal reservation for a population of 0.024% may be administratively impractical. However, it rejected the notion that numerical insignificance negates constitutional obligation. Instead, it found the notification’s fatal flaw to be its adverse impact on transgender persons from SC/ST/SEBC backgrounds, who are now compelled to forfeit more beneficial existing reservations without gaining any new advantage.
The Court further noted that the State’s welfare schemes, while commendable, do not substitute for reservation, which is a constitutional guarantee of access and representation, not charity.
The Court also referenced the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 2021, which provide for 1% horizontal reservation in each vertical category, as a model of effective implementation. It held that Rajasthan’s Transgender UtthanKosh Guidelines, being directory and non-binding, are insufficient.
The Court concluded that while it cannot mandate a specific percentage of horizontal reservation - a matter reserved for the State - the State has a constitutional duty to design a workable framework. In the interim, to prevent further injustice, the Court imposed a 3% additional weightage in selection processes and admissions.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded in part. The Court quashed the impugned notification dated 12.01.2023 as legally inadequate and directed:
- The State Government shall constitute a Committee, headed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, with transgender community representatives, to conduct a comprehensive study on compounded marginalization and recommend a reservation framework.
- Until such policy is formulated, all transgender persons applying for State government posts, public sector undertakings, State-funded institutions, or educational admissions shall be granted an additional 3% weightage in the maximum prescribed marks.
- The State shall ensure that any future policy preserves the right to self-identification as affirmed in NALSA, even in light of the proposed Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reservation Must Be Meaningful, Not Symbolic
- Practitioners must challenge any State action that substitutes "inclusion in OBC" for actual reservation mechanisms.
- The mere listing of a group in a backward class list without affirmative access measures is legally insufficient under NALSA.
- Courts will scrutinize whether reservation policies produce tangible outcomes, not just administrative compliance.
Intersectionality Cannot Be Ignored
- Transgender persons belonging to SC/ST/SEBC categories must be allowed to retain their pre-existing reservation benefits without being forced to choose.
- Policies must be designed to prevent the erosion of existing rights under the guise of inclusion.
- Legal arguments must highlight the compounded disadvantage faced by individuals with intersecting identities.
Interim Relief Is Available Even Without Horizontal Quota
- Where horizontal reservation is administratively complex, courts may impose interim measures like additional weightage to ensure immediate redress.
- Such measures are not substitutes for permanent policy but serve as constitutional stopgaps.
- Practitioners should seek interim relief while challenging inadequate reservation frameworks.
