Denying a transgender woman the status of a “woman” is unconstitutional, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held.

Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa in an order on June 16 said that a trans woman married to a man is entitled to file a criminal complaint of cruelty and harassment against her husband and his relatives under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

This section addresses cruelty inflicted upon a married woman by her husband or his relatives.

The High Court made the observation while hearing petitions to quash a criminal case filed by a trans woman against her husband, his parents and a relative.

“To deny a trans woman the status of a ‘woman’…solely on the ground of her reproductive capacity is to perpetuate discrimination and to violate Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution,” the order said.

The High Court called such an argument “deeply flawed and legally impermissible.”

While Article 14 ensures equality before the law, Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 21 guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty.

The order also stated that a narrow view of womanhood based on the ability to reproduce “undermines the very spirit of the Constitution, which upholds dignity, identity, and equality for all individuals, irrespective of gender identity.”

The trans woman married the man in 2019 according to Hindu rites. She later filed a complaint with the Ongole Police, alleging that her husband left her and that she received threatening messages.

The police filed a chargesheet against the husband and his family for cruelty under Section 498A and for offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

In their petitions to quash the criminal case, the husband and his family argued that the complainant, being a trans woman, could not be considered a “woman” under the anti-cruelty law. They claimed that since she cannot bear a child, she could not be seen as a woman in the “complete sense”.

In its order on June 16, the High Court drew support from several landmark Supreme Court judgements. It cited the 2014 National Legal Services Authority v Union of India verdict, which had recognised the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender.

The order also referred to the 2023 Supreme Court judgement on same-sex marriage. It noted that while the top court did not grant a universal right to marry, it unanimously affirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws.

Pratapa concluded that the complainant, being a trans woman in a heterosexual marriage, could not be deprived of her right to lodge a complaint against her husband and his relatives.

However, while ruling on the substance of allegations of cruelty made by the woman, the High Court said that the claims were “bald and omnibus” and lacked specific details. It held that allowing criminal proceedings against the man and his parents to continue would amount to abuse of the legal process.

The court went on to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused persons. However, it clarified that a trans woman in a heterosexual marriage would have protection under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.