MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has held that allegations of sexual assault and outraging the modesty of a woman can be sustained even when the victim is a transgender person who identifies herself as a woman.
The court observed that the self-perceived gender “cannot be questioned at least at the stage of considering an accused’s discharge application”.
Ingle moved the high court this year through advocate Anil Thakkar, seeking discharge. The court noted that the FIR and the chargesheet were sufficient to show direct allegations against Ingle for outraging the complainant’s modesty. A single-judge bench of Justice Mehroz Pathan on November 3 rejected the discharge application of Vishal Ingle, an Agniveer in the Army, who was accused of sexually assaulting a transgender woman on the promise of marriage. It held that even if the victim did not possess a certificate of transgender identity at the time of the alleged incident, it would not prevent the victim from invoking the penal provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The case arose from an FIR registered at Akot Rural police station on November 1, 2025. The complainant alleged that Ingle befriended her, proposed marriage, had sexual intercourse with her on October 28, 2025, and sexually assaulted her two days later. He argued that for Section 75 of the BNS to be attracted, the victim must be a woman. He also pointed out that the complainant obtained the transgender identity certificate only on February 12, 2026, after the alleged incident. It further noted that Section 4 (2) of the Act, which expressly recognised a transgender person’s right to self-perceived gender identity, was in force when the alleged incident took place last year.
Since the complainant is a transgender, Ingle said that no offence under the prescribed law is made out against him. The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India, which held that “it is entirely for the transgender to self-identify her gender and that this self determination cannot be questioned by others”.
Additional public prosecutor Swati V. Kolhe, appearing for the State, submitted that transgender persons are entitled to self-identify their gender. She also pointed out that Section 75(1) of the BNS does not expressly stipulate that the victim must be a woman. Rejecting the argument regarding the delayed identity certificate, the court observed that Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons Act, 2019, indicates that a person may identify as a transgender, including a transgender man or a transgender woman, even without a certificate of identity. It noted that the certificate issued under Section 5 of the Act of 2019 was only an enabling mechanism for making an application to the District Magistrate for the issuance of a certificate of identity pertaining to formal recognition.
The complainant, she said, identifies as a woman, has allegedly undergone hormonal treatment to further her gender identity, and is entitled to seek legal recourse regarding the alleged sexual harassment by Ingle.
