The Andhra Pradesh High Court on June 16 issued a landmark ruling that says Indian law cannot deny transgender women recognition as women solely because they cannot bear children.

Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, who presided over the case, rejected arguments that tie womanhood exclusively to reproductive capacity, declaring such views “legally unsustainable” and contrary to the Indian constitution’s guarantees of dignity, equality, and identity. The decision, rooted in the Supreme Court’s 2014 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India ruling that recognized individuals as a “third gender” with equal fundamental rights, marks a significant step toward gender justice in India.

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

The court emphasized this recognition is enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the constitution; which guarantee equality before the law, prohibit discrimination based on sex, and protect the right to life and personal liberty respectively. Pratapa further clarified that trans women are entitled to the same protections as cisgender women under Section 498A of the Indian penal code, which addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives.

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

The ruling came in response to a petition filed by Viswanathan Krishnamurthy and his parents, who sought to dismiss a dowry harassment case brought by Pokala Sabhana, a trans woman. Shabana alleged that Krishnamurthy and his family subjected her to cruelty and demanded dowry, charges that prompted her to seek protection under Section 498A.

The court’s decision to uphold her legal standing as a woman ensures that trans women can access critical protections against domestic abuse, setting a precedent for future cases.

Section 498A’s applicability to trans women, as the court affirmed, extends critical protections against domestic cruelty to marginalized groups. Trans women can now seek legal recourse under this provision for physical, emotional, or economic abuse, including dowry-related harassment, by their husbands or in-laws. This recognition ensures access to police intervention, potential arrest of perpetrators, and penalties under the Indian penal code, aligning trans women’s marital protections with those afforded to cisgender women. By including trans women under Section 498A, the ruling strengthens their ability to combat domestic violence and assert their rights within familial structures.

Shabana and Krishnamurthy lived together in Ongole, a city in Andhra Pradesh, for a short time before Krishnamurthy relocated to Chennai and ceased communication, according to the court document the Washington Blade obtained.

Shabana filed a complaint at the Ongole Women’s Police Station, alleging her in-laws threatened her life and that Krishnamurthy abused her. Based on her accusations, the police registered a case against Krishnamurthy and his parents under Section 498A.

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

The petitioners’ counsel argued that trans women, due to their inability to conceive, do not meet the legal definition of a woman and thus cannot invoke Section 498A. They also contended Shabana’s cruelty and dowry harassment allegations were baseless and lacked evidentiary support.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the petitioners’ arguments, ruling that gender identity does not hinge on the ability to bear children and other biological factors. The court affirmed that trans women, like Shabana, have the right to file complaints under Section 498A and are entitled to all constitutional protections afforded to women under the constitution.

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

The court noted Shabana’s claims of dowry demands and cruelty lacked supporting material. It ruled that proceeding with the trial without prima facie evidence would constitute a misuse of the judicial process.

“I am relieved, the 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 transgender community, especially trans women this verdict means a lot.”

Subramaniam told the Blade that the verdict is a momentous achievement. She described it as a significant stride toward justice, dignity, and equality for trans people throughout 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 prominent trans activist in Odisha, told the Blade the ruling is a significant triumph. 

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

“This is a respectful judgement for all of us,” added Parida. “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 to the transgender community and gender equality,” Rani Patel, president and founder of Aarohan, an organization that works to address educational disparities among underprivileged communities and advocates for LGBTQ rights, told 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,” added Patel. “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.”

In a significant moment for India’s LGBTQ community ahead of Pride month, the Madras High Court on May 22 affirmed people can form families outside of marriage.

The decision, handed down by Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan, emphasized “marriage is not the sole mode to found a family,” recognizing the concept of “chosen families” as a well-established principle in LGBTQ jurisprudence.

A two judge Madras High Court panel ordered the release of a 25-year-old lesbian woman who had been forcibly separated from her partner and subjected to harassment by her birth family. 

The Madras High Court sharply criticized the local police for their mishandling of the case, condemning their decision to force the woman back to her parents against her will. The two judges denounced the police’s “rank inaction” and insensitivity, emphasizing that government officials, particularly law enforcement, are obligated to respond swiftly and appropriately to complaints from LGBTQ people, ensuring their rights and safety are upheld.

The Madras High Court expressed unease with the term “queer,” noting its dictionary definitions as “strange” or “odd.” The judges questioned the appropriateness of the label in the context of describing LGBTQ identities, urging sensitivity in language to reflect the community’s dignity and rights.

“For a homosexual individual, their sexual orientation is natural and normal,” said the judges. “There is nothing strange about such inclinations. Why then should they be labeled queer?”

The Madras High Court judges observed that not all parents embrace their children’s identities, unfavorably comparing the detained woman’s mother to late-Justice Leila Seth, who publicly supported her son’s sexual orientation. The panel highlighted Seth’s acceptance as a model for familial understanding, underscoring the need for greater societal compassion toward LGBTQ people.

“The mother of the detenue is no Leila Seth,” said the court. “We understand her desire for her daughter to live a conventional heterosexual life, marry, and settle down. However, as an adult, the detenue is entitled to choose her own path.”

The Madras High Court emphasized the concept of “family” must be understood expansively, citing the Supreme Court marriage equality case and other precedents. These international guidelines affirm that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, are entitled to the full spectrum of human rights, reinforcing the court’s stance on recognizing chosen families within the LGBTQ community.

“While the Supriyo case may not have legalized marriage between same-sex couples, they can very well form a family,” the court said in its order. “The concept of ‘chosen family’ is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence. The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family.”

The Madras High Court referenced Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India, which is the marriage equality case on which the Supreme Court ruled in 2023.

The Supreme Court in that ruling declined to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples, but recognized the rights of queer people to form families and urged the government to explore civil union protections, bolstering the court’s call for an expanded understanding of family.

The Madras High Court invoked landmark rulings, including NALSA v. Union of India (2014), which affirmed the right to self-identify as one’s gender, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations, and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), which upheld the right to marry by choice as a fundamental right. The two judges reaffirmed sexual orientation is an individual choice, falling within the ambit of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the constitution.

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, stating no person shall be deprived of these rights except through lawful procedure. This fundamental right has been expansively interpreted by courts to encompass dignity, privacy, and autonomy, including protections for sexual orientation and other individual identities.

Souvik Saha, an LGBTQ activist and founder of People for Change, a leading Indian advocacy group, described the Madras High Court’s recognition of chosen families as both a relief and a validation of the community’s lived realities.

“As the founder of Jamshedpur Queer Circle and someone who has worked closely with LGBTQ+ individuals navigating rejection, violence, and social isolation, for decades, queer, and trans persons in India have built nurturing ecosystems outside their biological families — often due to rejection, abuse, or lack of acceptance,” said Saha. “This concept of ‘chosen family’ is not new to us; it’s a survival mechanism, a source of healing, and a space where we find dignity, belonging, and love. The fact that the judiciary now formally acknowledges these relationships marks a progressive and humane shift in how family is legally and socially understood.”

Saha shared the story of S, a transgender man from Jamshedpur whose biological family disowned him at 17.

Finding refuge with a queer couple who became his guardians, S received emotional support, celebrated milestones like birthdays, and was guided through education and gender-affirming healthcare. “Isn’t that family?” asked Saha.

Saha told the Washington Blade the Madras High Court’s ruling sparks hope for legal reforms; particularly in securing adoption, inheritance, and caregiving rights for queer people. He said the decision affirms that queer lives are not deviant but diverse, vibrant, and capable of forming loving, responsible families. Most crucially, Saha noted, it sends a powerful message to queer youth in Jamshedpur and other smaller cities that their lives and relationships are valid and valued.

“This ruling is a step forward, but we must be honest. Legal rulings alone won’t change police behavior unless they are followed by systemic structural reforms,” said Saha. “Policing in India is still deeply patriarchal, casteist, and heteronormative. Many officers still view LGBTQ identities as criminal or immoral, even after Section 377 was struck down in 2018.”

Saha said mandatory sensitization programs in every police academy are needed to transform attitudes. He said the inclusion of queer rights in law enforcement curricula — beyond token workshops — are also important. Saha added the recruitment of LGBTQ liaison officers and the formation of compliant mechanisms at the district level is needed.

“This ruling is a strong message from the judiciary, but unless the Ministry of Home Affairs and state police departments institutionalize this into practice, change will remain slow and uneven,” said Saha.

The rollback of the U.S. Agency for International Development under the Trump-Vance administration represents a global setback for LGBTQ rights. A report from the Observer Research Foundation, a leading Indian think tank that advises the government on policy, however, highlights a unique opportunity for the country to rely less on overseas funding to promote LGBTQ inclusion and integrate the “pink economy” into its broader economic growth strategy, fostering a more inclusive and self-reliant framework.

The “pink economy,” defined as the purchasing power of the queer community, is valued globally at approximately $3.7 trillion. In India, this market is estimated at $168 billion, but remains largely untapped due to persistent stigma that obstructs economic inclusion for LGBTQ people.

The ORF report notes that, as a result, India’s LGBTQ community has relied heavily on international aid and funding, with Western narratives often shaping perceptions of queer identities.

Despite India’s efforts to advance LGBTQ rights — through recognizing a “third gender” in the 2011 Census, the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision to decriminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations by striking down Section 377, and the passage of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act in 2019 — these measures have done little to meaningfully to elevate the social and economic status of the LGBTQ community.

India’s queer community constitutes roughly 18 percent of the global queer population. A 2025 study reveals it receives only 1 percent of global LGBTQ funding, despite heavy reliance on international donors.

The Against All Odds — Advancing Equity for India’s LGBTQIA+ Communities report reveals that, within India, only one of the nation’s top 50 donors explicitly funds queer causes, underscoring a significant gap in domestic philanthropy for the LGBTQIA+ community.

India’s Social Justice and Empowerment Ministry for the 2025-2026 fiscal year allocated $1.07 billion to support education, skilling, healthcare, and rehabilitation for marginalized groups. The ORF report, however, emphasizes this funding falls significantly short for the estimated 140 million-strong queer community, as it narrowly focuses on trans people, thereby limiting its impact on the broader LGBTQ community.

A 2014 World Bank report, the Economic Cost of Homophobia and The Exclusion of LGBT People: A Case Study of India, found that excluding the LGBTQ community from economic participation results in a GDP loss of between .1 and 1.7 percent, translating to an annual economic impact of $1.9 billion to $30.8 billion.

The ORF report underscores that social stigma restricts access to education and hinders opportunities for meaningful employment. 

A 2024 report, Fundamental Rights of Work Inclusion for LGBTQ in India, reveals that fewer than 6 percent of trans people are part of the formal workforce, with their presence in the public sector being nearly negligible. It further notes that, for daily survival, many trans people are forced into hostile environments or resort to street begging.

Thailand, with a marriage equality law that took effect in January, is widely recognized for its relative tolerance toward the LGBTQ community, fostering a vibrant queer culture in cities like Bangkok. The country actively promotes itself as a gay-friendly tourism destination, with businesses capitalizing on the “pink economy” through events, nightlife, and tailored travel services. A 2017 report highlighted Thailand as a leading hub for gay-friendly holidays, significantly bolstering its pink economy.

China stands out as a major player in the “pink economy,” valued at an estimated $300 billion annually in 2017, the largest in Asia, fueled by at least 70 million people. Despite government restrictions on queer content, businesses like Blued, a gay social networking app with 54 million users, and Taobao and other e-commerce platforms have tapped into the “pink market,” offering services such as same-sex wedding packages abroad.

Japan has made gradual strides in LGBTQ inclusion with Goldman Sachs, Panasonic, Rakuten and other companies implementing inclusive policies, such as same-sex partner benefits, since 2015. The Japan Business Federation in 2017 issued guidelines to promote LGBTQ-inclusive employment. Tokyo’s rising status as an LGBTQ-friendly city bolsters tourism and consumer markets tied to the “pink economy.” Japan’s tech and tourism sectors remain robust, despite the country’s modest economic growth, with “pink economy” initiatives driving urban economic vitality.

Anish Gawande, the first openly gay national spokesperson for India’s Nationalist Congress Party, told the Washington Blade that excluding the LGBTQ community carries a tangible financial cost. He emphasized India must soon recognize that marginalizing this group not only triggers a brain drain of top talent but also bars hundreds of thousands of highly capable individuals from driving the nation’s economic progress.

“I am a firm believer in a politics of care. If we only want LGBTQ+ inclusion for the sake of economic prosperity, there will never be true inclusion,” said Gawande. “What we must understand is that an embracing of diversity — across caste, class, religion, region, gender, and sexuality — is fundamental to ensuring that we build communities that listen to and learn from each other. By embracing diversity, which has been at the very heart of what it means to be Indian, we do not just prosper economically — but also build more resilient, more equal, and more harmonious societies.”

Kalki Subramaniam, a prominent LGBTQ activist and artist, told the Blade the issue transcends mere economic gain, emphasizing the vibrant spirit and unrecognized potential of LGBTQ people across India.

“We are here, we exist, and our contributions are invaluable. But the government is yet to recognize and fully tap it,” said Subramaniam. “If they are not listening, they will lose out, not just on money, but on the richness we bring to the fabric of India. This is not just an economic report, it is a heartbeat of a community yearning to be seen, to be accepted, and to be allowed to shine for the prosperity of our shared home.”