The recognition of transgender persons as equal stakeholders in society has gained momentum through legislative, judicial, and social developments. However, legal systems worldwide still grapple with the nuanced application of laws that were historically framed through a binary lens of gender. In India, the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is a pivotal piece of legislation designed to safeguard women from domestic abuse.

This article explores whether transgender women, who identify as 'women,' can invoke the provisions of the DV Act under Section 2(a), which defines an "aggrieved person." By examining the relevant statutes, constitutional provisions, and landmark judgments, this article argues for an inclusive interpretation of the DV Act, aligning it with constitutional mandates of equality and non-discrimination.

Introduction
The Domestic Violence Act, 2005, enacted to provide protection to women from domestic abuse, defines an "aggrieved person" under Section 2(a) as any woman subjected to domestic violence by a partner or household member. Historically, laws like the DV Act were framed within a strict binary understanding of gender, excluding the lived realities of transgender individuals.

However, with the legal recognition of transgender persons in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438 (hereinafter NALSA), Indian jurisprudence began to dismantle rigid gender binaries, affirming the rights of transgender persons to self-identify their gender. The question then arises: can transgender women who identify and present themselves as women claim protection under the DV Act? This discussion becomes pertinent in light of the Act's focus on protecting vulnerable individuals within domestic relationships.

Legal Framework: Relevant Statutes and Constitutional Provisions

• Definition of 'Aggrieved Person' under Section 2(a) of the DV Act
  Section 2(a) of the DV Act defines an "aggrieved person" as a woman who alleges domestic violence by a person with whom she is in a domestic relationship. While the Act does not explicitly define "woman," its application has conventionally been limited to cisgender women.
• The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019
  The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, recognizes the right of individuals to self-identify their gender as male, female, or transgender. Section 4(2) of the Act explicitly states that individuals shall have the right to be recognized in accordance with their self-identified gender. This statutory provision lends support to the argument that a transgender woman, who identifies as a woman, falls within the ambit of 'woman' under the DV Act.

  Constitutional Provisions

• Article 14 (Equality Before Law): Ensures equality and equal protection of laws for all persons, prohibiting discrimination based on arbitrary classifications such as gender identity.
• Article 15(1) (Non-Discrimination): Prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex, which has been interpreted to include gender identity in NALSA.
• Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity): Protects the right to live with dignity, encompassing the rights of transgender individuals to self-identify their gender and live free from violence and discrimination.

Judicial Precedents

1. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438 (NALSA): The Supreme Court, in its landmark decision, recognized the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender and directed the state to treat them as socially and economically backward classes for the purpose of affirmative action. This judgment expanded the scope of constitutional rights to include gender identity, emphasizing dignity and non-discrimination.
    
2. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1: While primarily addressing the decriminalization of homosexuality, the Court underscored the importance of individual autonomy and the right to make decisions about one's identity. The recognition of gender identity was an implicit corollary to this judgment.
    
3. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368: The Court affirmed that personal autonomy in choosing one's identity and relationships is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty under Article 21. This judgment lends credence to arguments for the inclusion of transgender women under laws framed for the protection of women.
    
4. Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration (2019 SCC OnLine Mad 8779): The Madras High Court recognized a marriage between a cisgender man and a transgender woman, holding that a transgender woman qualifies as a "bride" under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This precedent reflects a judicial shift towards recognizing transgender women within the framework of laws historically restricted to cisgender women.

Discussion: Expanding the DV Act's Scope
The principle of purposive interpretation, frequently invoked by Indian courts, suggests that laws should be interpreted to fulfill their objectives. The DV Act's purpose is to protect individuals from abuse within domestic relationships, and limiting its applicability to cisgender women would undermine this objective.

Moreover, applying the DV Act to transgender women aligns with India's international obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which mandates member states to eliminate gender-based violence in all its forms.

Critics may argue that extending the DV Act's protections to transgender women would require explicit legislative amendments. However, the judiciary has often expanded statutory interpretations to align with constitutional values without waiting for legislative action. For instance, the decriminalization of consensual homosexual relationships in Navtej Johar exemplifies the judiciary's proactive role in recognizing LGBTQ+ rights.

Conclusion
The recognition of transgender women as "aggrieved persons" under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is not merely a matter of statutory interpretation but a constitutional imperative. Excluding transgender women from the ambit of the Act would perpetuate systemic discrimination, contrary to the principles of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution.

Judicial pronouncements, such as NALSA and Arun Kumar, affirm the right of transgender persons to be recognized in accordance with their self-identified gender. By applying a purposive and inclusive interpretation to the DV Act, courts can ensure that the law remains a robust tool for safeguarding all individuals from domestic violence, irrespective of their gender identity. In doing so, India would take a definitive step toward achieving true gender justice.