Indian court rules a trans woman is a woman

On June 16, the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a landmark ruling affirming that Indian law cannot refuse to recognise trans women as women simply because they cannot have children.

Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, who oversaw the case, dismissed arguments that equate womanhood solely with the ability to reproduce, stating such perspectives are “legally unsustainable” and contradict the Indian constitution’s guarantees of dignity, equality, and identity. The decision, influenced by the Supreme Court’s 2014 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India ruling, which acknowledged individuals as a “third gender” with equal rights, represents a considerable step forward for gender justice in India.

According to Pratapa, “A trans woman, born male and later transitioning to female, is legally entitled to recognition as a woman.”

According to ‘Washington Blade’, the court underscored that Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the constitution support this recognition, ensuring equality before the law, prohibiting sex-based discrimination, and safeguarding the right to life and personal liberty. Pratapa further stated that trans women are entitled to protections under Section 498A of the Indian penal code, which pertains to cruelty by a husband or his relatives, just like cisgender women.

“Denying such protection by questioning their womanhood amounts to discrimination,” declared the High Court in its ruling.

The ruling addressed a petition by Viswanathan Krishnamurthy and his parents, who sought to dismiss a dowry harassment case filed by Pokala Shabana, a trans woman. Shabana contended that Krishnamurthy and his family mistreated her and demanded dowry, prompting her to seek protection under Section 498A.

The court’s decision to affirm her legal standing as a woman ensures that trans women can access vital protections from domestic violence, setting a precedent for future cases.

Section 498A, as affirmed by the court, extends critical protections against domestic cruelty to marginalised groups, allowing trans women to seek legal recourse for abuse, including dowry-related harassment, by husbands or in-laws. This recognition facilitates access to police action, potential arrest of perpetrators, and penalties under Indian law, bringing trans women’s marital protections in line with those available to cisgender women. By encompassing trans women under Section 498A, the ruling bolsters their ability to combat domestic violence and assert their rights within family structures.

Shabana and Krishnamurthy briefly cohabited in Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, before Krishnamurthy moved to Chennai and stopped communicating, according to a court document obtained by the Washington Blade.

Shabana lodged a complaint at the Ongole Women’s Police Station, accusing her in-laws of threatening her life and Krishnamurthy of abuse. Based on her accusations, police charged Krishnamurthy and his parents under Section 498A.

In 2022, Krishnamurthy and his parents petitioned the Andhra Pradesh High Court to dismiss the case, arguing Shabana, as a trans woman, could not utilize Section 498A, a provision typically applied to cisgender women.

The petitioners’ lawyer claimed that trans women, due to their inability to conceive, do not qualify as women legally and thus cannot invoke Section 498A. They also argued Shabana’s allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment were unfounded and lacked evidence.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the petitioners’ claims, ruling that gender identity does not depend on reproductive ability or other biological factors. The court affirmed trans women's right to file complaints under Section 498A and to be entitled to all constitutional protections granted to women.

While affirming that trans women are legally recognised as women, the High Court dismissed the case against Krishnamurthy and his family, citing insufficient evidence rather than arguments based on gender.

The court noted Shabana’s assertions of dowry demands and cruelty were unsupported by evidence. It ruled that proceeding with the trial without preliminary proof would be an abuse of the judicial process.

“I am relieved, delighted, and thank the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the judge for upholding our basic human right to be identified as what we want. What better reason could that be for celebrating this Pride Month,” said Kalki Subramaniam, a prominent trans activist and artist. “For the transgender community, especially trans women, this verdict means a lot.”

Subramaniam told the Blade that the verdict is a monumental achievement, describing it as a significant step toward justice, dignity, and equality for trans individuals across India.

“By affirming their legal status as women, the court has shattered discriminatory barriers and reinforced the fundamental principle that identity is valid and deserving of full legal protection,” said Subramaniam. “This ruling marks a significant moment of progress, sending a clear message that our legal frameworks are evolving to be more inclusive and reflective of the diverse realities of our society. It is a victory of human rights and a beacon of hope for a more equitable future.”

Meera Parida, a well-known trans activist in Odisha, said that the ruling is a notable triumph.

“Only because a trans woman cannot bear a child, she is not a woman — that’s not good,” Parida stated.

“This is a respectful judgement for all of us,” Parida continued, “This is restoring equality and somewhere because of this verdict the stigmatization wall will fall and people will respect us. I respect this verdict.”

“This verdict is very progressive and a crucial step forward for the transgender community and gender equality,” said Rani Patel, president and founder of Aarohan, an organization that addresses educational disparities among underprivileged communities and advocates for LGBTQ rights, to the Blade. “People said that we should give them separate toilets and classrooms, but that totally excludes them from the community. Many women also cannot give birth to a child, so that is totally different.”

“If someone is carrying themselves as female, they should be honored with their status,” Patel added. “Since the purpose of the verdict is to recognize trans women as women, they will get all the status and rights as cisgender women in dowry and harassment cases.”