The Scottish government argued in court that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain.

Lord Hodge said the central question was how the words “woman” and “sex” are defined in the legislation.

He told the court: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.

“But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not.”

He added that the legislation gives transgender people “protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender”.

Campaigners who brought the case against the Scottish government hugged each other and punched the air as they left the courtroom, with several of them in tears.

The Equality Act provides protection against discrimination on the basis of various characteristics, including “sex” and “gender reassignment”.

Judges at the Supreme Court in London were asked to rule on what that law means by “sex” – whether it means biological sex, or legal, “certificated” sex as defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

The Scottish government argued the 2004 legislation was clear that obtaining a GRC amounts to a change of sex “for all purposes”.

For Women Scotland argued for a “common sense” interpretation of the words man and woman, telling the court that sex is an “immutable biological state”.

Outside the Supreme Court, For Women Scotland co-founder Susan Smith said: “Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex.

“Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the Supreme Court for this ruling.”

A UK government spokesman said: “This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.

“Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described the ruling as a “victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious”.

But Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman, a prominent campaigner for trans-rights, said: “This is a deeply concerning ruling for human rights and a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society.

“It could remove important protections and will leave many trans people and their loved ones deeply anxious and worried about how their lives will be affected and about what will come next.”

The Scottish government has not yet commented on the ruling.

[BBC]

The investigation also names other members of the Congress party, including its overseas chief Sam Pitroda, according to news agency ANI.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) began investigating the case in 2021 after a private complaint filed by Subramanian Swamy, a member of the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Swamy alleged that the Gandhis used party funds to take over Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which published the now-defunct National Herald newspaper, and illegally acquired properties worth millions through AJL.

The Congress maintains that it bailed out the publisher due to its historical legacy and had lent more than 900m rupees to AJL over the years.

In 2010, AJL became debt-free by swapping its debt for equity and assigning the shares to a newly created company called Young Indian, which the party says is a “not-for-profit company” with no dividends paid to its shareholders and directors.

Sonia and Rahul Gandhi are among Young Indian’s directors and they each own 38% of the company. The remaining 24% is owned by Congress leaders, including Motilal Vora and Sam Pitroda.

Last week, the Enforcement Directorate said Young Indian had acquired AJL properties worth 20bn rupees for just 5m, significantly undervaluing their worth.

It also served several notices to seize assets worth 6.6bn rupees across several Indian cities – including Delhi and Mumbai – which are connected to Young Indian.

The case is scheduled to come up for hearing on 25 April.

In recent years, the opposition has repeatedly accused the Narendra Modi government of weaponising the Enforcement Directorate against its political opponents.

According to data compiled by Reuters in 2024, the agency has summoned, questioned or raided around 150 opposition politicians since Modi came to power in 2014.

Last year, the ED arrested former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with an alleged liquor scam just a month before key general elections. He spent five months in jail before being freed on bail.