The case, Viswanathan Krishna Murthy & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., involved a complaint by Pokala Sabhana, a 24-year-old trans woman. She alleged that her husband, Viswanathan Krishna Murthy, and his family had subjected her to cruelty and harassment. She filed her complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a law designed to protect wives from abuse by their husbands and in-laws.

This led the court to consider two key questions: first, whether a Trans woman could be considered a ‘woman’ under this law, and second, whether the allegations were sufficient to warrant a criminal trial. The court’s answer to the first was a clear “yes,” but its answer to the second was a firm “no”.

A Trans Woman is a ‘Woman’ Under the Law

The husband and his family argued that Sabhana could not be considered a ‘woman’ under Section 498-A, because she cannot bear children and therefore was not a woman in the “complete sense”.

Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa rejected this argument, calling it “deeply flawed and legally impermissible”. The court’s reasoning was built on established legal principles:

• Womanhood is not defined by reproductive ability: The court stated that linking womanhood to the capacity to have children “undermines the very spirit of the Constitution, which upholds dignity, identity, and equality for all individuals”.
• Right to Self-Identify Gender: The judgment relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2014 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India The NALSA case established that every individual has the fundamental right to self-identify their gender, and the state must legally recognize it.
• Right to Marry: The court also cited the Supreme Court’s 2023 marriage equality case, Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India. While that case did not legalize same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court was unanimous in holding that “transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing law”.
• Constitutional Protections: Since Sabhana and Murthy’s marriage was legally valid, denying her the protections of Section 498-A would violate her fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and life with dignity (Article 21).

Based on this, the court concluded that a Trans woman in a heterosexual marriage is entitled to protection under Section 498-A of the IPC.

Why the Case Was Dismissed

Despite this landmark finding, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against Murthy and his family. The reason was purely procedural: Sabhana’s complaint lacked the specific details required to sustain a charge of cruelty under Section 498-A.

The court found the allegations to be “bald and omnibus,” meaning that they are too vague and general to be the basis for a criminal case. The specific deficiencies noted were:

• Against the husband: The complaint stated that he left her less than two months after they started living together and that she later received a threatening message from his phone. However, it did not describe any specific acts of physical or mental cruelty that occurred while they were together.
• Against the in-laws: Sabhana stated in her complaint that her in-laws maintained “cordial relations” with her. The only negative claim was that they were trying to send their son abroad, which is not a criminal offense.
• Against another relative: A fourth person was accused with a single sentence claiming he was directing the others, with no supporting details.

The court pointed to a long line of Supreme Court rulings that caution against the misuse of Section 498-A. To prevent the law from being used to settle personal scores, courts require complaints to contain clear and specific allegations against each accused person. Because Sabhana’s complaint did not meet this standard, the court ruled that allowing the case to continue would be an “abuse of process of law”.

The judgment in Viswanathan Krishna Murthy is a significant step forward for the legal recognition of transgender rights in India. It establishes a clear precedent that the protections against domestic cruelty apply to Trans women in heterosexual marriages.

Jurisdictions like the UK and the US are seeing radical Trans exclusionary policies and establishments with figures like JK Rowling and Donald Trump respectively. For example, in a recent case, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that legal definition of woman is based on biological sex.[1] Therefore, judgements like these highlight the nuanced discourse that is emerging India with contributions from a powerful judiciary. However, it is important to note that judicial pronouncements cannot and will not satisfy the need for a comprehensive law that recognises queer marriage. Only a democratic and transparent legislative process will cover that gap.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

[1] For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16

Related:

Kerala High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Order Directing PSC To Provisionally Accept Trans-Woman’s Application For Post Confined To Women Candidates

Indian women, transgender and non-binary persons in science: A 21st Century calendar by TLoS

Transgender rights in India: stalled progress and a frustrated community

The post Andhra Pradesh High Court rules Trans woman is a ‘woman’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the video, Nisha can be heard saying that she was abducted from inside her colony and brutally assaulted by BJP leader Rajni and her associates. As stated by Nisha, she was wrongfully confined by the mob which consisted of at least 30 Hijras and almost 18 boys. She was attacked by the mob using sticks and steel rods. Nisha further alleges that her hair was also chopped by the mob using scissors and she was attacked on her head with bricks. As she narrates the details of the attack that was faced by her, the video shows the many bruises sustained by her. Notably, in the video Nisha could be seen with a plaster on her leg. Nisha further alleges that the attack on her was made with the intention to kill her.

The video can be accessed here:

She made and released the said video to urge the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand Pushkar Dhami and Prime Minister Narendra Modi to save her from Rajni. Nisha also expressed her disappointed with the authorities, stating that even after having court ordered police protection and filing a First Information Report against Rajni, no action against the BJP leader were taken. Towards the end of the video, Nisha appeals to the state authorities to take cognizance of her case and held her seek justice, or else she would self-immolate herself in front of the CM’s office.

Previous FIR by Nisha against Rajni

It is essential to highlight that this is not the first instance of assault that has been reported by Nisha against Rajni. On August 4, 2023, Dehradun police had booked BJP leader Rajni and thirty of her associates for allegedly attacking Nisha. As per the complaint filed by Nisha, the incident of assault had occurred on July 25, 2023.

A report of the Times of India stated that Sub-inspector Sanjay Mehrotra, who was investigating the case, had said that Nisha alleged in her complaint that on July 25, her transgender guru had called her to come to her place. When Nisha had reached the spot, Rajni, along with her 30 acquaintances, had assaulted her and forced her to sign some blank papers. Nisha had further accused Rajni of extorting Rs. 40,000 from Nisha. Nisha had also provided that Rajni had also threatened her against reporting the said incident to the police before letting Nisha leave and had also deleted all the CCTV footage of the incident.

Notably, accused Rajni and her associates had been booked under sections 147(rioting), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 342 (wrongful confinement) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

It is essential to note that Nisha had approached the Police on July 26 itself, but the police officers had refused to file the complaint. Rajni extorted Rs. 40,000 from her.

High Court order for police protection:

On August 10, 2023, the Uttarakhand High Court bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit had granted Nisha police protection after she had approached the Court alleging fear from the BJP leader and no support from the police, who she had accused of working under pressure from local politicians.

As per the order of the court, the Station House Officer of the Basant Vihar Police Station, Dehradun, had been ordered by the court to assess the situation and ensure that the petitioner is provided with adequate protection.

“In the meantime, SHO, PS Basant Vihar, Dehradun shall assess the threat perception to petitioner and shall provide adequate protection to ensure that no harm is caused to her from respondent no. 3 or any other person acting at her behest.” (Para 7)

The complete order can be accessed here:

No state action against Rajni even after multiple reports of abuse:

It has been alleged by Yes, WeExist that BJP leader Rajni Rawat is well connected with Uttarakhand CM Dhami, who has provided Rajni with her own private bodyguards and government sponsored police protection. Allegedly, it is this state backing and power that Rajni routinely uses to harass and assault trans women and gay men who cross dress. Taking to ‘X’, Yes, WeExist pointed fingers towards the Uttarakhand state police for failing to take action against Rajni and her gang, who not only harasses gay sex-workers, but also owns multiple illegal weapons and threatens those who oppose her.

Related:

Uttarakhand: Will the Ankita Bhandari murder case, arrest of journalist, Negi affect the April 19 poll?

Uttarakhand’s UCC seen through a Muslim women’s political perspective

Uttarakhand: Six Muslims killed after demolition of Madarsa, Haldwani MLA says officials rushed the process

The post Uttarakhand: Bharatiya Janata Party leader Rajni Rawat accused of attacking trans woman Nisha Chauhan, second instance of abuse reported in one year appeared first on SabrangIndia.