UK SC backs 'biological' definition of woman
In a win for Scottish gender-critical campaigners who brought the case to the UK's highest court, five London judges unanimously ruled that "the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman, and biological sex".
However, the act also "gives transgender people protection" against discrimination in their acquired gender, Justice Patrick Hodge said in handing down the verdict.
The UK government welcomed the ruling for bringing "clarity" to the debate.
It is the culmination of a years-long battle between the Scottish government and the campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) -- which launched an appeal to the Supreme Court after losing pleas in Scottish courts over an obscure legislation aimed at hiring more women in public-sector bodies.
Dozens of FWS and other gender-critical campaigners, who argue that biological sex cannot be changed, cheered the ruling, hugging and crying outside the court.
"This has been a really, really long ride," said Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland.
"Today, the judges have said what we always believed to be the case: that women are protected by their biological sex," she said. "Women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women".
The Scottish government said it accepts the verdict and would focus on "protecting the rights of all".
Trans rights activists had raised concerns that a ruling in favour of FWS could risk discrimination against trans people in their chosen gender.
"The court is well aware of the strength of feeling on all sides which lies behind this appeal," Hodge said.
Scottish Greens activist and trans woman Ellie Gomersall, 25, told Sky News the ruling was "yet another attack on the rights of trans people to live our lives in peace".
But "Harry Potter" author JK Rowling, one of the most prominent supporters of gender-critical campaigns, praised the "three tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them" who refused to drop the case.
"In winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the UK," Rowling, who has been accused of transphobia and become a target of hate, posted on X.
At the heart of the legal battle were clashing interpretations of the Equality Act.
While the Scottish government argued that the Equality Act gave trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) the same protections as a biological female, FWS disagreed.
In its judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that the devolved Scottish government's "interpretation is not correct" and that the Equality Act was inconsistent with the 2004 Gender Recognition Act that introduced GRC certificates.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which is responsible for enforcing the Equality Act, said it was "pleased" the ruling addressed complicated issues of maintaining single-sex spaces.
Single-sex spaces and services including changing rooms, hostels and medical services "will function properly only if sex is interpreted as biological sex", the judgement said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SCBA expresses concern over amended SC rules
ISLAMABAD: The president Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) expressed deep concern over the recent amendments to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, which were introduced 'without prior and meaningful consultation with the SCBA'. SCBA chief Mian Rauf Atta, in a statement issued on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to review and withdraw the recent increase in court filing fees so as to restore public confidence and uphold the constitutional promise of speedy, inexpensive, and unobstructed justice. The SCBA remains steadfast in its commitment to the rule of law, judicial independence, and the equal right of all citizens to access justice without financial or procedural barriers, and will continue to safeguard these principles in the national interest. Atta said that the apex representative body of the legal fraternity, with members across all provinces and territories, the association has a vital institutional role in any reforms to the procedural framework of the Supreme Court. 'Introducing such changes in isolation risks weakening the spirit of collaborative decision-making and overlooks the legitimate contribution of the Bar in protecting the integrity and accessibility of the justice system.' Rauf Atta noted that the substantial and unprecedented increase in court fees and filing charges is excessive and poses serious challenges to the principle of affordable justice. He emphasised that the Supreme Court's constitutional role is to remain the ultimate forum for the dispensation of justice – not to create financial hurdles that discourage citizens, especially the poor and vulnerable, from exercising their right to seek redress. Determining or revising such fees is properly within the legislative and the executive domain, and such increases, if disproportionate, risk placing justice beyond the reach of many, contrary to the foundational principles of a democratic legal order. The SCBA president further highlighted that the dignity, respect, and fair treatment of lawyers, litigants, and all stakeholders must be preserved at every stage of judicial proceedings and within court premises. A fee structure of this magnitude will inevitably increase the overall cost of litigation, making it more difficult for ordinary citizens to pursue their cases. This, he observed, is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees contained in Article 8 to 39 of the constitution, which require the State to ensure inexpensive, expeditious, and unobstructed justice for all. Atta also stressed that the Supreme Court should focus on delivering substantive justice through patient and thorough hearings, rather that placing undue emphasis on statistical disposal of cases. True justice is reflected not in the number of cases decided but in the fairness, impartiality, and depth of judicial reasoning. Efficiency should serve the cause of justice, not replace it. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
3 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Bahria Town auction: SC bench declines to hear case
ISLAMABAD: A bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, on Wednesday, declined to hear the case of auction of Bahria Town's properties. The chief justice sent the case back to a bench, which had previously heard the case. 'It would be appropriated for the old bench to hear this case,' CJP Afridi said. Farooq H Naek, representing Bahria Town, stated he has no objection if the matter is sent back to the old bench. He; however, told that detailed verdict of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has been announced, adding that he would submit additional objections on the detailed IHC verdict related to business tycoon Malik Riaz, who established the Bahria Town empire in Pakistan. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb on August 8, 2025, had turned down M/s Bahria Town (Private) Limited plea to halt the auction of its properties, but issued notices to the respondents. Justice Naeem questioned what the National Accountability Ordinance says about plea bargain. He noted that if an accused challenges the plea bargain process then it becomes inoperative, adding in the instant matter the accused has challenged the plea bargain, and the applications against them are pending, but the properties are being auctioned. Justice Naeem observed that instead of main petition only the Civil Miscellaneous Applications (CMAs) were fixed for hearing today (Friday), adding how come they can hear the CMAs without hearing the main petition. Naek told that he came to know about this case late at night, adding still the case is not issued on the cause list. The counsel stated thanks God that he was in Islamabad; therefore, appearing before the bench. The case was adjourned for an indefinite time period. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
SC enacts Supreme Court Rules 2025
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court enacted the Supreme Court Rules, 2025, which has revoked Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The new rules are being applied with effect from August 6, 2025. However, any proceedings pending under the revoked Rules by way of an application, petition, appeal, reference, review; etc., on the commencement of these Rules, shall be continued and disposed of as if these Rules have not been made. According to the gazette notification if any difficulty arises in giving effect to any of the provisions of these Rules, the chief justice of Pakistan on the recommendations of a committee, to be constituted by him, may make such order, not inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules, as may appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of removing such difficulty. Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi to enhance transparency, efficiency and overall effectiveness in judicial proceedings had constituted a committee, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, to draft the new rules. The committee sought proposals from judges, the SC office, as well as, bar councils and associations. It has been clarified that any proceedings already pending under the revoked rules – whether by way of application, petition, appeal, reference or review – shall continue and be disposed of as if the new rules had not been made. 'If any difficulty arises in giving effect to any of the provisions of these Rules, the chief justice of Pakistan, on the recommendations of a committee to be constituted by him, may make such order, not inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules, as may appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of removing such difficulty.' Under the new rules, the time limit for filing criminal appeals, criminal petitions for leave to appeal and direct civil appeals has been extended from 30 days to 60 days. Appeals against registrar office objections must be filed within 14 days, while the review petitions against SC judgments must be filed within 30 days. 'Application for review shall be filed in the Registry within thirty days after the pronouncement of the judgement or order, as the case may be, which is sought to be reviewed,' the draft states. Applicants are required to notify the opposing party immediately after filing the review application and send a copy of the notice to the Registry. Every review application must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order being challenged. If it is based on newly discovered evidence, certified copies of relevant documents must be attached along with an affidavit explaining the circumstances of the discovery. The advocate or party signing the application must briefly specify the points on which the review is sought and provide a certificate confirming that a review is justifiable in accordance with the law and practice of the court. The certificate must be in the form of a reasoned opinion. The new rules state that costs for proceedings will be at the court's discretion, but not less than Rs25,000. Interveners will not be entitled to costs unless otherwise ordered. If the hearing of a case is delayed due to an advocate-on-record's neglect, such as failing to attend or provide necessary documents, the court may direct that advocate to personally bear the costs. Where adjournments are sought without sufficient cause, compensatory costs may be imposed on the advocate or party. The same applies to those filing false or vexatious proceedings that waste the court's time. No court fee will be charged for jail petitions. Regarding constitutional matters, the rules provide that any petition, appeal, or review involving the original jurisdiction of the court under Article 184, the appellate jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 185 (where a High Court judgment involves the constitutionality of a law or a substantial constitutional question), or the advisory jurisdiction under Article 186 shall be heard by a constitutional bench constituted under Article 191A of the Constitution. Such a bench will consist of no fewer than five judges, nominated by the committee. If the judges hearing a matter are equally divided in opinion, the committee may refer it either to another judge or to a larger bench. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
