In the matter of Anamika vs. UOI & Ors., the petitioner, born as a boy but recognises himself as a girl challenged the constitutionality of Section 354-A of IPC, on the ground that it excludes victims of sexual harassment who are transgender persons, and is thereby ultra vires of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.  

The Petitioner who was unaware of the means to get her gender changed in any identity document was sexually harassed by her male fellow students who passed obscene comments and sexually coloured remarks against her regarding her identity.   

She thus filed a complaint of harassment to the college disciplinary committee. However, as there was no immediate action taken, she lodged a complaint in the police station. But later the Investigation Officer stated that as per the Section, sexual harassment can be committed by a man against a woman only. And when there was no action being taken against her complaint, she filed a case before the Delhi High Court.  

The Hon’ble court observed that if a cognizable offence was made out under S.354A IPC in the complaint, the same shall be registered even if the complainant is a transgender person, in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in NALSA.  

Thus, based on the court’s observation, the Delhi police declared that cognizance over the said complaint will be taken, and investigation is underway. And due to this assertion of police, the petitioner did not proceed with her petition which was disposed of by the Delhi High Court.   

This judgement implies that if the police are required to acknowledge a transgender woman as a woman and grant her same rights as a cis woman, then the Internal Committee (IC) should also adopt a similar approach. Thus, if a transgender woman files a complaint under the POSH Act, 2013, then the IC should adhere to the same procedure as under the POSH Act, 2013.   

Written by Adv. KPS Vasantha