Bombay High Court says outraging modesty provision can apply to a transgender woman, refuses discharge
Justice Mehroz K Pathan refused to discharge an Agniveer accused of assault on a promise of marriage and held that the complainant's identity as a woman cannot be questioned at this stage.
Written with AI assistance from the sources listed below, then checked against them and reviewed by an editor. How our newsroom works
A Bombay High Court transgender woman ruling holds that the outraging modesty provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) can apply when the complainant is a transgender woman. Justice Mehroz K Pathan of the Nagpur Bench refused to discharge an Agniveer in the Indian Army who is accused of sexual assault on a promise of marriage, in an order dated 3 November 2026 that was reported on 7 November, Bar and Bench reported.
What the Bombay High Court transgender woman ruling decided
The accused filed a criminal revision after his application for discharge was rejected. His counsel argued that Section 75 of the BNS applies only to a woman, meaning a female human being, so it cannot cover a transgender victim. He also argued that the complainant obtained a formal transgender identity certificate only after the alleged incidents, Bar and Bench reported.
The complainant, who identifies as a woman, alleges assault on a false promise of marriage in October 2025. LiveLaw reported that the alleged assaults took place on 28 and 30 October 2025, and that police invoked Section 75 and Section 296 of the BNS along with Section 18(D) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The accused is not named here because the case has not gone to trial.
Key numbers
- 3 November 2026: the date of Justice Pathan’s order.
- 28 and 30 October 2025: the dates of the alleged assaults, per LiveLaw.
- 12 February 2026: the date the complainant’s identity certificate was issued.
- 3 provisions: Section 75 and Section 296 of the BNS, and Section 18(D) of the 2019 Act.
What the court said
Justice Pathan held that the complainant’s self-identification as a woman “cannot be questioned at least at the present stage,” Bar and Bench reported. LiveLaw reported that the court said “the allegations of assault and outraging the modesty of a woman can be sustained” even where the victim is a transgender person who identifies as a woman.
On the certificate, the court noted that a person can identify as transgender without holding one under the 2019 Act. It held that “merely because the Complainant did not possess a certificate of identity” at the time does not by itself bar the penal provisions of the Act, LiveLaw reported.
Who appeared
Advocate Anil Thakkar appeared for the accused, and Additional Public Prosecutor Swati V Kolhe appeared for the State of Maharashtra, according to Bar and Bench. The court found that an offence under Section 75 appeared to be prima facie made out, which is the test at the discharge stage.
What happens next
The revision was dismissed and the case will go to trial. A discharge ruling is a finding on whether charges can proceed, not on guilt, so the trial court will decide the facts. For more on the courts, see our profile of the Supreme Court of India, our report on the two-child norm referral and our India coverage.
The order says the lack of an identity certificate at the time of the alleged offence does not by itself bar the penal provisions. It signals how courts may treat similar complaints, though it is a finding at the discharge stage only.