In a significant hearing at the Rajasthan High Court, a Division Bench examined whether merely classifying transgender persons under the OBC category without granting them a separate quota meets constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
The case was brought by a transgender petitioner who argued that the State’s approach fails to translate legal recognition into real benefits.
Background of the Case
The petition challenges a Rajasthan government notification dated January 12, 2023, which included transgender persons in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) list. However, no separate reservation quota was provided for them.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Examines ECI’s Power to Transfer Top Officials Ahead of Polls
The petitioner, Ganga Kumari, approached the Court seeking enforcement of rights already recognised by the Supreme Court in the landmark NALSA v. Union of India judgment. She argued that without horizontal reservation (a quota cutting across all categories), transgender individuals remain excluded from meaningful opportunities.
The Court noted that this was not the petitioner’s first attempt. Earlier proceedings had directed the State to take steps toward reservation, but the petitioner claims the response has been inadequate.
During the hearing, the Bench reflected deeply on the lived realities of transgender persons. It referred to constitutional principles and past Supreme Court rulings recognising transgender individuals as a “third gender” with equal rights.
The Court observed that despite cultural and historical acknowledgment of gender diversity in India, transgender persons continue to face systemic exclusion.
“The issue before us is not whether such rights exist… The real question is whether those rights will be translated into lived realities,” the Bench remarked.
It further noted that merely placing transgender persons within the OBC category may not adequately address their distinct disadvantages.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the State’s notification is discriminatory in effect. According to them, grouping transgender persons within OBCs dilutes their chances of securing jobs or admissions.
Read also:- Can Women Aged Above 50 Years Seek IVF Treatment Despite Legal Restrictions? Bombay High Court To Consider
They stressed that horizontal reservation is necessary because transgender individuals may belong to multiple social categories (such as SC/ST/OBC), and a separate quota would ensure fair representation.
The petitioner also highlighted the harsh realities faced by many in the community, including lack of employment opportunities and social exclusion.
The State government defended its policy, arguing that transgender persons have already been recognised as socially and educationally backward and are entitled to OBC reservation benefits.
It contended that reservation policy is a matter of legislative and executive decision-making, and courts should not intervene unless there is clear constitutional violation.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Flags Mediation Gaps, Secures ₹11 Crore Victim Compensation Fund
The State also pointed to welfare schemes, skill development programs, and employment initiatives undertaken for transgender individuals.
At the heart of the case lies a crucial constitutional question:
Does inclusion in an existing category like OBC satisfy the mandate of equality, or is a distinct horizontal reservation necessary to ensure real access to opportunities?
The matter was heard by the Division Bench, which reserved its judgment after considering the submissions from both sides. The Court is expected to decide whether the State’s policy aligns with constitutional guarantees and Supreme Court directions.
Case Details
Case Title: Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1358/2025
Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur
Judges: Justice Arun Monga & Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Decision Date: 30 March 2026
Counsels:
- Petitioner: Vivek Mathur, Prakash Kumar Balout, Dhirendra Singh Sodha
- Respondents: Deepak Chandak (for AAG), Piyush Bhandari, Mahesh Thanvi, Pragya Thanvi
