The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has ruled that criminal allegations involving the outraging of a woman’s modesty can be sustained even when the victim is a transgender person who self-identifies as a woman. In a significant decision regarding the interpretation of gender identity within the framework of current penal provisions, Justice Mehroz K. Pathan dismissed a revision application filed by an Indian Army Agniveer, Vishal S/O Sunil Ingle, who sought to be discharged from criminal proceedings initiated after he was accused of sexually assaulting a transgender person under the pretext of marriage.

The court’s decision settles a critical question regarding the applicability of Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—which deals with the outraging of a woman’s modesty—in cases where the complainant is a transgender person. The applicant, Ingle, had argued that because the complainant was a transgender person, the legal definition of "woman" could not be applied to them, thereby rendering the specific charges under the BNS invalid. However, the court rejected this attempt to narrow the scope of protection, asserting that the victim’s right to self-perceived gender identity is paramount.

Legal Recognition of Self-Identified Gender The case originated from a police report filed in November 2025 by the complainant, who alleged that they were subjected to forced sexual intercourse on two separate occasions in late October 2025. According to the police report, the complainant had been undergoing hormonal treatment since 2015 to align their physical appearance with their gender identity and had begun expressing that identity publicly. The complainant alleged that the accused had gained their trust, proposed marriage, and subsequently committed sexual assault at a flat in Akot.

Following the filing of the case under Sections 75, 296, and 351(2) of the BNS, as well as the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 , the accused sought discharge from the charges. Counsel for the applicant contended that the legal definition of "woman" under Section 235 of the BNS —defined as a "female human being of any age" —should be interpreted strictly to exclude transgender individuals who have not undergone formal transition processes or who possess a distinct legal status. The defense further argued that because the complainant received a formal transgender identity certificate in February 2026 , after the alleged incident occurred, the charges under the Transgender Persons Act were inapplicable to the earlier timeline.

Justice Pathan addressed these contentions by emphasizing the evolving understanding of gender rights as established by the Supreme Court in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) case. The court noted that a person’s right to self-identify their gender is a fundamental aspect of their identity and cannot be subjected to external validation or questioning during the preliminary stages of a criminal trial.

"The Complainant, who is a transgender person, identified herself as a woman and has allegedly undergone hormonal treatment in furtherance of her gender identity ," Justice Pathan remarked, noting that the legal definition of a transgender person under the 2019 Act explicitly includes those who identify as transgender women regardless of whether they have undergone surgical reassignment.

Establishing Boundaries for Prosecution The judgment provides a clear judicial pathway for how police and trial courts should approach similar cases involving transgender victims. The court clarified that the absence of a government-issued transgender certificate at the time of the alleged offense does not strip an individual of their right to seek protection under existing criminal laws. By referencing the framework of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the court established that the identity recognition is an inherent right rather than a bureaucratic entitlement.

Regarding the specific charges, the court found that the evidence presented in the charge sheet was sufficient to justify moving to the trial phase. Justice Pathan pointedly addressed the defense’s attempt to characterize the relationship as consensual, noting that such defenses cannot be used to bypass a trial. "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," the judge concluded.

The court also dismissed concerns regarding the applicability of the 2026 amendments to the Transgender Persons Act, noting that the legislative intent was to ensure that victims of abuse are not left without recourse due to their gender identity. By upholding the trial court's order to reject the discharge application, the High Court has effectively mandated that the trial must proceed to determine the merits of the allegations of assault and sexual harassment.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to providing equal legal protection to all individuals, irrespective of their gender assigned at birth. As the case moves toward trial, the court’s focus remains on the substance of the allegations rather than the applicant's attempts to utilize technical legal definitions of gender to avoid prosecution. The decision stands as a firm precedent in the Bombay High Court, confirming that the protections intended for women under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are inclusive of transgender women who express their identity through active steps such as hormonal therapy or social transition.

With the discharge plea denied, the case is set to continue before the trial court, where the prosecution will be tasked with presenting evidence to prove the allegations of sexual assault and the outraging of the complainant's modesty. The legal representatives for the accused have yet to outline their next steps, but the High Court’s ruling has effectively set the parameters for how gender identity evidence will be handled in this and future criminal proceedings across the state.