By Anuradha Gandhi and Surbhi Gandotra
Introduction
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Viswanathan Krishna Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC AP 2281[1], delivered a judgment on June 16, 2025, affirming that “a transwoman is legally entitled to be recognised as a woman under Indian law.” The case was presided over by Hon’ble Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa.
Brief Background of the case
The petitioner, a Transwoman, married Viswanathan Krishna Murthy under Hindu rites and customs in January 2019. After a brief period of living together in Ongole, Viswanathan left for Chennai and ceased communication with the petitioner. The petitioner, subsequently filed a complaint at the Ongole Women’s Police Station, alleging cruelty and mental harassment by her husband and in-laws. Petitioner’s parents had given INR 10,00,000/-, 25 sovereigns of gold, silver articles weighing 500 grams, and household items worth INR 2,00,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage. The police registered a case under Section 498A of the IPC[2] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.[3]
Viswanathan and his family sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that “Petitioner, being a Transwoman, is not legally a “woman” and thus could not invoke Section 498A, which protects wives from cruelty by husbands or their relatives”.[4]
Court’s Decision on Applicability of Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act
Hon’ble Justice Pratapa categorically rejected the argument that womanhood is confined to the ability to conceive or bear children calling it “legally unsustainable and contrary to the Indian Constitution’s guarantees of equality and dignity”. The court held that:
- A trans woman is legally recognized as a woman
- She is entitled to invoke Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
- Denying such protection amounts to unconstitutional discrimination
The court emphasized that the definition of “woman” under Indian law is not biologically confined and must be interpreted in light of constitutional guarantees.
Constitutional Observations and Landmark Judicial Precedents
Hon’ble Justice Pratapa’s reasoning was anchored in transformative constitutionalism and relied on several landmark judgments in the legal history of India:
In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India 2014[5], the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the grievances of the members of transgender community who sought legal declaration of their ‘gender identity’ than the one that is assigned to them at the time of birth along with a prayer to declare such non-recognition as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court has categorically held that the Constitution protects non-binary individuals and that the protections envisaged under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 cannot be restricted to the biological sex of “male” or “female”, Affirmed their right to self-identify gender and Recognized transgender persons as the third gender.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was enacted pursuant to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India 2014. The Act establishes a mechanism for the legal recognition of the gender identity of transgender persons through the issuance of a certificate of identity by the District Magistrate, thereby affirming the right of every transgender person to a self-perceived gender identity.
The court further noted that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, expressly recognises ‘Transwomen’ within the fold of “transgender persons” and affirms their right to legal recognition irrespective of surgical status. “A trans woman, born male and later transitioning to female, is legally entitled to recognition as a woman. Denying such protection by questioning their womanhood amounts to discrimination.”
| Section | Provision |
| 2(k) | Defines transgender persons, including trans women |
| 3 | Prohibits discrimination in all spheres |
| 4 | Affirms right to self-perceived gender identity |
| 6 and 7 | Provides for identity certificates, though criticized for bureaucratic hurdles |
The court laid down that in the decision of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India[6], a Bench of Nine Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “sexual orientation is a facet of a person’s privacy which is a fundamental right under our Constitution and that discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual”.
A Bench of five Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[7], while decriminalizing Section 377 of IPC has held that “homosexuality is based on a sense of identity and is as much ingrained, inherent and innate as heterosexuality and that homosexuals have the fundamental right to live with dignity, are entitled to the protection of equal laws, and are entitled to be treated in society as human beings without any stigma being attached to any of them.”
In Arunkumar v. Inspector General of Registration, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that “every person has a right to self-identify one’s own gender and thus the expression “bride” occurring in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 will have to include not only a woman but also a transgender woman. The Hon’ble Madras High Court held that “the State could not disallow gender expression, and a marriage solemnized between a male and a transwoman who are both Hindus is valid under the Hindu Marriage Act.”
In the present case Hon’ble Justice Pratapa stated:“A trans woman, born male and later transitioning to female, is legally entitled to recognition as a woman. Denying such protection by questioning their womanhood amounts to discrimination.”
Similar Disputes on Trans Identity in Matrimonial Law
Historically, Indian courts have struggled with the legal recognition of transgender persons in matrimonial contexts. Prior to NALSA, gender identity was often conflated with biological sex, leading to exclusion from legal protections.
Post-NALSA, courts have increasingly recognized:
- The validity of marriages involving transgender persons
- Their right to file complaints under matrimonial laws
- Their entitlement to protection under domestic violence statutes
However, “this judgment does not constitute the creation of new law, but rather serves as a reaffirmation of rights and protections that have already been recognized under the Constitution and established through judicial precedent.”
Impact of the Judgment and Present Position of Transgender Persons
The present judgment establishes that trans women are “women” under Indian law and affirms their right to file complaints under matrimonial and criminal statutes. It also strengthened the jurisprudence on gender identity and legal recognition of the transgender person
The social impact of the present judgment challenges the societal stereotypes linking womanhood to reproductive ability. Promotes inclusive justice and gender-sensitive interpretation of laws. Encourages law enforcement and judiciary to treat Trans persons with dignity
Current Position
Despite legal recognition, transgender persons continue to face:
- Social stigma and exclusion;
- Barriers in accessing justice, healthcare, and employment;
- Violence and harassment, often underreported.[8]
This judgment has created a hope, reaffirming that the Constitution protects all individuals, regardless of gender identity.[9]
Conclusion
The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling is a watershed moment in India’s legal journey toward gender inclusivity. By affirming that a Trans woman is entitled to recognition and protection under matrimonial laws, the court has upheld the spirit of the Constitution that values dignity, equality, and autonomy.
This judgment not only reinforces the legal standing of trans women but also sends a powerful message: Justice must be inclusive, and rights must be universal.[10]
[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7886923/
[2] Section 498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
[3] Penalty for demanding dowry: If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees
[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91576011/
[5] NALSA v. Union of India [(2014) 5 SCC 438]
[6] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1]
[7] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [(2018) 10 SCC 1]
[9] ibid
[10] Viswanathan Krishna Murthy & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. June 16, 2025