Outraging Modesty Law Applies Where Victim Is a Transgender Woman, Rules Bombay High Court in Vishal Sunil Ingle v. State of Maharashtra
Case: Vishal Sunil Ingle v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:15063
Date of Judgment: 03 November 2026
Court: Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)
Coram: Justice Mehroz K. Pathan
Court Observation
“In my considered opinion, therefore, the allegations of assault and outraging the modesty of a woman can be sustained even where the victim is a transgender person who identifies herself as a woman.”
Summary
The Bombay High Court has held that the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 can be sustained even where the victim is a transgender person who identifies herself as a woman. Justice Mehroz K. Pathan dismissed the criminal revision application of Vishal Sunil Ingle, a 24-year-old Agniveer in the Indian Army, who had challenged the rejection of his discharge application.
The complainant, a transgender woman who had undergone hormone therapy since 2015, alleged that Ingle sexually assaulted her on a false promise of marriage on 28 and 30 October 2025. An FIR was registered on 1 November 2025 under Sections 75, 296 and 351(2) of the BNS and Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The Court held that the complainant’s self-determination of gender cannot be questioned at the discharge stage, and that the absence of a certificate of identity under the 2019 Act at the time of the alleged incidents — the certificate was issued on 12 February 2026 — did not preclude invoking the Act’s penal provisions. The plea of consent was held to be a matter for trial, and the charge-sheet was found to disclose sufficient material to proceed.
Key Holdings
- Allegations of assault and outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 can be sustained even where the victim is a transgender person who identifies herself as a woman.
- A person’s self-determination of gender cannot be questioned by others, following the Supreme Court’s decision in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014), and cannot be questioned at the discharge stage.
- The absence of a certificate of identity under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 at the time of the alleged offence does not, by itself, preclude invoking the penal provisions of the Act, since Section 4(2) of the Act recognising the right to self-perceived gender identity was in force at the relevant time.
- Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was rightly invoked on the facts alleged in the FIR.
- Whether the physical relationship was consensual is a matter for trial; the charge-sheet disclosed sufficient material to proceed against the accused.
Background
Ingle’s application for discharge was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 6 July 2026. He challenged that order before the High Court, arguing that Section 75 of the BNS applies only to a “woman” as defined in the statute and therefore cannot apply to a transgender complainant.
Related Articles
- Transgender Rights in Public Employment and the Pursuit of Substantive Equality
- Transgender Person Who Underwent Surgery To Change Gender To Female Can File Complaint Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court
- The Role of Law in Promoting Gender Equality and LGBTQ+ Rights
Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
