Allahabad High Court: Section 69 BNS Excludes Transgender Woman

• The Allahabad High Court ruled that Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) does not apply to transgender women in cases of sexual relationships based on a false promise of marriage.
• Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal clarified that the term "woman" in Section 69 BNS refers exclusively to a "female human being."
• The court cited the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, stating that transgender individuals have a separate legal identity distinct from "female human beings" for this specific criminal provision.
• Transgender persons, even after sex reassignment surgery, are considered transgender men/women, not "female human beings" under Section 69 BNS.
• Transgender individuals can still invoke provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, particularly Section 18(d), to address sexual abuse.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, presiding over the matter, explicitly stated that the term "woman" as it appears in Section 69 of the BNS is to be understood as exclusively referring to a "female human being."

The Allahabad High Court recently issued a significant ruling concerning the interpretation of "woman" within Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a provision that criminalizes sexual relationships established under a false promise of marriage. In a case identified as Mohd Saakir @ Mohd Sakir v. State of UP, the court granted bail to an individual accused of engaging in a sexual relationship with a transgender woman based on such a false matrimonial assurance. This decision has clarified the scope of the BNS provision, particularly for cases involving transgender individuals.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, presiding over the matter, explicitly stated that the term "woman" as it appears in Section 69 of the BNS is to be understood as exclusively referring to a "female human being." This narrow interpretation directly impacts the applicability of the section to transgender women, effectively excluding them from its protective ambit in situations involving a false promise of marriage. The ruling underscores a specific legal distinction drawn by the court regarding gender identity within the framework of this particular criminal statute.

The High Court's reasoning for this interpretation hinges on the distinct legal identity afforded to transgender persons under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The court emphasized that this legislation establishes a separate and unique identity for transgender individuals, which, for the purposes of Section 69 BNS, differentiates them from "female human beings." This distinction is crucial for understanding the court's decision.

Justice Deshwal elaborated that even if an individual undergoes sex reassignment surgery, transitioning from their assigned gender at birth, they retain their identity as a transgender man or woman. The court clarified that such an individual would not, by virtue of their transition, become a "male human being" or "female human being" in the specific context of the BNS provision. Consequently, the court concluded that the word "woman" in Section 69 BNS is strictly limited to individuals who are female human beings by birth, thereby not encompassing transgender women. This interpretation of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69 is pivotal for understanding gender identity in criminal law in India.

Despite the non-applicability of Section 69 BNS to transgender women in false promise of marriage cases, the Allahabad High Court was careful to highlight that transgender individuals are not left without legal recourse against sexual abuse. The court explicitly stated that transgender persons can, and should, invoke other relevant provisions, particularly those found within the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. This clarification provides an essential pathway for justice for this community.

Specifically, the court pointed to Section 18(d) of the 2019 Act. This section is designed to address various forms of harm and injury, including physical abuse and sexual abuse, against transgender persons. Therefore, while a transgender woman may not be able to pursue charges under Section 69 BNS for sexual relations based on a false promise of marriage, they can seek redress for the sexual abuse itself through the comprehensive protections offered by the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. This guidance is vital for legal practitioners advising transgender clients in India.

This ruling by the Allahabad High Court carries significant implications for the legal landscape surrounding gender identity and criminal law in India. It mandates a precise understanding of statutory language, particularly when it intersects with evolving definitions of identity. For legal professionals, it necessitates a strategic shift in how cases involving false promise of marriage and transgender individuals are approached, moving away from Section 69 BNS and towards the specific protections outlined in the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

The decision clarifies that while the intent to protect individuals from exploitation under false pretenses remains, the specific legal tool must align with the recognized legal identity of the complainant. It underscores the importance of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, as the primary legislative framework for addressing violations against transgender individuals, including instances of sexual abuse. This judicial interpretation ensures that while one specific avenue is closed, a more appropriate and tailored legal path remains open for transgender women seeking justice.

Lawyers must note that the Allahabad High Court has clarified Section 69 of the BNS does not apply to transgender women in false promise of marriage cases, necessitating a different legal strategy for such clients. Practitioners should advise transgender clients seeking redress for sexual abuse under false promise of marriage to invoke provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, particularly Section 18(d), instead of Section 69 BNS.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet