JODHPUR, April 3 -- The Rajasthan high court on Thursday ordered the deletion of three paragraphs that criticised the recent amendments to the transgender rights act from a March 30 verdict, adding that the text in the epilogue was included by mistake and was neither intended nor necessary. A division bench of justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit - who had passed the order while deciding a writ application filed by a transgender person - noted that certain portions had "inadvertently" been included in the epilogue of the earlier judgment. "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," the court said. The court then ordered the deletion of three paragraphs that had discussed the implications of the proposed amendment to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The court had raised concerns over the recently passed law, observing that it removes the statutory recognition of a transgender person's right to self-perceived gender identity and risks reducing a fundamental aspect of personhood to a state-controlled process. The comments, which also asked the Rajasthan government to prioritise self-identification of gender in its policies , were made while deciding a petition filed by Ganga Kumari, a transgender person from Jalore district, who had challenged a Rajasthan government notification that included transgender persons in the other backward classes category without providing a separate framework for reservation. All these observations stood deleted on Thursday. The bench, however, rejected the request by petitioner Ganga Kumari that the epilogue should not be treated as part of the judgment or considered for precedential purposes. The bench observed, "Having heard 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."...