Bombay High Court Rules BNS Section 75 Applies to Transgender Women
Court affirms legal protections for transgender individuals identifying as women under new penal code.
1Judicial Ruling on BNS
The Bombay High Court, led by Justice Mehroz Pathan, ruled that Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita applies to transgender individuals who identify as women. This decision emerged during the case of Vishal Ingle, an applicant who sought to discharge charges related to outraging the modesty of a complainant.
2Defining Gender Identity
Justice Pathan rejected the argument that Section 75 is inapplicable due to the complainant's transgender status. The court emphasized that the complainant identifies as a woman and has undergone hormone therapy. Consequently, the judge concluded that allegations of outraging a woman's modesty remain legally sustainable in this specific context.
3Legal Charges Involved
Vishal Ingle, who previously served as an Agniveer, faces multiple legal charges. The police registered an offense under Section 75 and Section 296 of the BNS. Additionally, the applicant is charged under the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act of 2019, specifically concerning the alleged assault and harassment of the victim.
4Certificate Status Clarification
The court addressed the defense's claim regarding Section 18(D) of the 2019 Act, noting the complainant lacked an identity certificate during the October 2025 assaults. The judge clarified that Section 2(k) allows individuals to identify as transgender without formal certification, meaning the absence of documentation does not invalidate the legal protections.
5Timeline of Legal Events
The alleged assaults occurred on October 28 and October 30, 2025. Although the complainant received an official certificate of identity on February 12, 2026, the court ruled this delay irrelevant. The judge stated that the absence of a certificate at the time of the offense does not bar applying the 2019 Act.
6Statutory Interpretation Scope
The ruling highlights the judicial approach to Section 5 of the 2019 Act, which provides a route to apply to the District Magistrate for identity certification. By validating the FIR, the court confirmed that allegations attract the invoked provisions, regardless of the specific timing of the formal identity certificate issuance process.
7Broader Legal Implications
This decision reinforces the applicability of gender-specific protections within the new Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita framework. By recognizing the complainant's identity post-hormone therapy, the court sets a precedent for how law enforcement and judicial bodies should interpret modesty-related offenses when involving transgender victims who actively identify and transition as women.
8Significance of the Verdict
The ruling serves as a critical interpretation of modern Indian penal laws regarding inclusivity. It ensures that transgender individuals are not excluded from legal safeguards meant to protect women. By prioritizing self-identification and medical transition history, the court strengthens the reach of the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act of 2019.