The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, has affirmed that a transgender person who self-identifies as a woman can invoke legal provisions meant to protect a woman’s modesty. In a significant ruling that clarifies the interpretation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Justice Mehroz K. Pathan dismissed a criminal revision application filed by an Indian Army Agniveer who sought to be discharged from charges of sexual assault and the outraging of a woman’s modesty. This decision establishes that the legal protections afforded to women against sexual violence are not restricted to cisgender individuals but extend to transgender women who affirm their gender identity.

The legal challenge arose from a case involving an Indian Army recruit, Vishal Sunil Ingle, who was accused of committing sexual assault under the pretext of marriage in October 2025. Following the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) at the Akot (Rural) Police Station in Akola district, the accused was charged under Section 75 (outraging the modesty of a woman), Section 296 (obscenity), and Section 351(2) of the BNS, alongside Section 18(D) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. Seeking to avoid a full trial, the applicant moved for a discharge, arguing that the complainant, being a transgender person, did not fall under the statutory definition of a "woman" as prescribed in the BNS.

The defense counsel argued that because Section 235 of the BNS defines "woman" as a female human being of any age, the statutory provisions intended for the protection of women could not be applied to a transgender complainant. Furthermore, the defense contended that the complainant had only obtained a formal transgender identity certificate in February 2026—months after the alleged incident—and thus lacked the legal status to claim the protections afforded by the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act at the time of the events described in the FIR.

Justice Pathan, however, rejected these contentions, emphasizing the fundamental right to self-perceived gender identity. Drawing upon the landmark judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India , the court observed that the legal system must recognize a person’s right to determine their own gender. The court reasoned that the complainant’s ongoing hormonal treatment and self-identification as a woman were sufficient factors to satisfy the prima facie requirements for the application of Section 75 of the BNS.

The ruling clarified that the absence of a government-issued transgender identity certificate at the exact moment of the alleged assault did not negate the victim’s right to seek legal redress. The court noted that while the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act of 2026 had introduced changes to the regulatory framework, the acts attributed to the applicant occurred when the previous protections remained fully in force. The court found that the complainant’s identity was established through her self-determination and her efforts to align her physical body with that identity through medical therapy.

Addressing the procedural nature of the discharge application, Justice Pathan observed, "The perusal of the FIR would show that the Complainant/Victim has identified herself to be a woman and the aforesaid self determination cannot be questioned at least at the present stage while accused is seeking discharge ."

The court further noted that the allegations in the FIR, which included claims of non-consensual sexual acts and the use of abusive, derogatory language, were grave enough to warrant a trial. By refusing the discharge, the court ensured that the evidence collected by the police—which included the complainant’s testimony and medical records relating to hormonal treatments—could be tested in a court of law.

Regarding the argument that any physical relationship had been consensual, the court maintained that such factual disputes are not to be settled during the discharge stage. Instead, the court held that matters of consent and the factual accuracy of the charges must be explored during the trial, where the prosecution and the defense will have the opportunity to lead evidence.

"In my considered opinion, therefore, the allegations of assault and outraging the modesty of a woman can be sustained even where the victim is a transgender person who identifies herself as a woman," Justice Pathan stated in the judgment.

The decision represents a pivotal moment for gender identity rights in the criminal justice system. By affirming that the protections against sexual harassment under the BNS are inclusive, the court has signaled a shift toward a more expansive interpretation of law that respects self-identified gender. The court’s rejection of the discharge application means that the criminal proceedings against the accused will continue, with the prosecution expected to move forward with the charges under the BNS and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act.

As the case moves toward trial, the implications of this ruling will likely reverberate through lower courts, providing a precedent for how future complaints by transgender women are treated under the current criminal code. For now, the case remains under the jurisdiction of the trial court, which will proceed to hear the evidence and determine whether the allegations against the applicant are substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused remains subject to the judicial process as outlined in the dismissal of his revision application, ensuring that the legal proceedings initiated in late 2025 will conclude according to established criminal procedure.