Sexual Victimization and the Legal Response to Transgender Persons in India (BNS 2023, TPPR Act 2019, and POCSO 2012)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7492/446t2p75Keywords:
Transgender survivors, sexual violence, BNS 2023, TPPR Act 2019, POCSO Act, access to justice, gender diversity, institutional biasAbstract
Sexual violence against transgender persons in India remains a critical yet under-addressed issue, largely due to structural gaps in the legal
framework and institutional biases. This paper critically examines how three key legislations—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, the
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act (TPPR) 2019, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012—interact
to shape access to justice for transgender survivors of sexual victimization.The BNS, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, retains a largely binary
and cisnormative understanding of sexual offences, particularly rape. As a result, transgender women often face reluctance in applying serious rape
provisions, while trans men and non-binary persons are frequently downgraded to lesser offences. The TPPR Act provides an important rightsbased framework by prohibiting discrimination and promoting dignity, but it lacks specific, enforceable mechanisms for crisis response, safe
shelter, confidentiality, and accountability during sexual violence cases. In contrast, POCSO offers the most structurally inclusive approach for
transgender minors through its gender-neutral, child-centred provisions. However, its effectiveness is heavily undermined by implementation
failures such as misgendering, outing, unsafe shelter placements, and institutional stigma.Through a comparative analysis, the paper highlights that
while these laws contain progressive elements on paper, the actual protection for transgender survivors depends more on the front-end stages of
the justice system—FIR registration, medical examination, shelter placement, and initial investigation—where bias and procedural gaps are most
pronounced.The study concludes that meaningful justice requires more than criminalization or general non-discrimination clauses. It calls for
binding standard operating procedures, mandatory training, time-bound grievance redressal, identity-affirming protocols, and stronger
accountability mechanisms across police, healthcare, and child protection institutions.








