Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejected Reproductive Ability Arguments
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the right of a transgender woman in a heterosexual marriage to seek protection under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, a provision designed to safeguard women from cruelty by their husbands or in-laws, as reported by The News Minute.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa issued the ruling while addressing a petition filed by the accused seeking to quash criminal charges brought against them under IPC Section 498A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. While the court ultimately set aside the proceedings due to a lack of material evidence, it firmly asserted that the complainant, a transgender woman, qualifies for protection under the anti-cruelty statute.
The petitioner had argued that the woman’s gender identity was not covered under Section 498A, citing her inability to biologically reproduce. The court dismissed this claim as “legally impermissible,” stating that equating womanhood solely with reproduction runs contrary to constitutional values and undermines the rights of gender minorities.
“The argument that the complainant cannot be regarded as a ‘woman’ merely because she is incapable of biological reproduction is deeply flawed,” the court observed, noting that dignity, identity, and equality cannot be restricted by narrow biological definitions.
Justice Pratapa supported the ruling with references to several major Supreme Court decisions that affirm the rights of transgender individuals and members of the LGBTQIA+ community:
- NALSA v Union of India (2014): Affirmed the right to gender self-identification.
- KS Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017): Recognized privacy as a fundamental right.
- Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018): Decriminalized same-sex relations between consenting adults.
The High Court also referenced the Supriyo v Union of India (2023) judgment, where the Supreme Court acknowledged that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships are entitled to marry under existing laws, despite the court’s decision not to legalize same-sex marriage.
The ruling reaffirmed that a person’s self-identified gender must be fully respected under Indian law and that protections outlined in the IPC and the Domestic Violence Act extend to transgender women in domestic relationships.
While the criminal charges in this particular case were dismissed for evidentiary reasons, the court’s interpretation provides clarity on the application of gender-specific protections, affirming that the law recognizes the lived experiences and rights of transgender individuals.
