Bombay High Court: BNS Modesty Safeguards Apply to Transgender Women

• The Bombay High Court ruled that legal protections against outraging modesty under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 75 apply to transgender women.
• Justice Mehroz K Pathan dismissed a criminal revision application by Vishal Sunil Ingle, who was accused of sexual assault.
• The court stated that a complainant's self-identification as a woman cannot be questioned at the discharge application stage.
• The ruling clarifies that allegations of outraging modesty can be sustained even if the victim is a transgender person who identifies as a woman.
• The accused faced charges under BNS Section 75 and Section 18(D) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

The court concluded that accusations of assault and outraging the modesty of a woman remain valid, even when the victim is a transgender individual who identifies as a woman.

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently determined that legal safeguards designed to prevent the outraging of a woman's modesty under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are applicable to transgender individuals who identify as women. This significant ruling, issued on November 3, 2026, by Justice Mehroz K Pathan in the case of Vishal Sunil Ingle v. State of Maharashtra, dismissed a criminal revision application filed by the accused, Vishal Sunil Ingle, who had sought to overturn the rejection of his discharge application.

The case originated from allegations made in October 2025, where the complainant accused Ingle, an Agniveer in the Indian Army, of sexual assault under the false promise of marriage. Consequently, Ingle faced charges under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 18(D) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The defense contended that Section 75 of the BNS, which addresses outraging modesty, should apply exclusively to individuals biologically defined as female, thereby excluding transgender victims.

Central to the defense's argument was the assertion that the term 'woman' within Section 75 of the BNS strictly denotes a female human being, and therefore, could not encompass a transgender person. The defense further highlighted that the victim had obtained a formal transgender identity certificate only after the alleged incident took place, implying that their identity as a woman was not legally established at the time of the alleged offense.

However, Justice Pathan rejected this narrow interpretation. In his decision, the judge emphasized that the complainant's self-identification as a woman, as documented in the First Information Report (FIR), could not be challenged at the preliminary stage of a discharge application. The court concluded that accusations of assault and outraging the modesty of a woman remain valid, even when the victim is a transgender individual who identifies as a woman.

This ruling from the Bombay High Court marks a crucial development in the legal recognition and protection of transgender women in India, particularly concerning offenses related to outraging modesty. By affirming that a transgender person identifying as a woman can invoke these protective provisions, the court has reinforced the principle of self-determination in legal contexts and broadened the scope of who is considered a 'woman' under relevant statutes.

The decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that legal frameworks adapt to include and protect marginalized communities, aligning with the spirit of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. It sends a clear message that legal protections against gender-based violence are not confined to cisgender women but extend to transgender women, thereby strengthening their legal standing against such offenses across India.

This ruling clarifies that legal protections against outraging modesty under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 75 extend to transgender women. Lawyers should advise clients that the definition of "woman" in this context is inclusive, impacting both prosecution and defense strategies in cases involving transgender complainants.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench