In a major legal victory, India’s High Court confirms trans women’s right to protection under domestic violence law…

It took one of India’s state high courts to say what should have been obvious all along: trans women are women—and the law must treat them as such.

The ruling came on June 16, when the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the argument that a woman’s legal status hinges on her ability to bear children. That claim was used to try and deny Pokala Shabana, a transgender woman, protection under Section 498A of India’s Penal Coddite—a provision meant to shield women from domestic violence and dowry-related abuse.

The court dismissed it as legally unsustainable.

What it affirmed instead was this: gender identity is not conditional. A trans woman does not have to prove she fits into someone else’s idea of biology or function. She is entitled to dignity, protection, and recognition—rights guaranteed under India’s Constitution, specifically Articles 14, 15, and 21.

This was more than a personal win for Shabana. It was a judicial acknowledgment of a truth that trans people across India—and around the world—have lived and fought for every day.

The case that forced the issue

Shabana’s complaint wasn’t theoretical. She alleged that her husband and his family had abused her, demanded dowry, and threatened her safety. She brought her case to the Ongole Women’s Police Station. The police registered a complaint. The legal process began.

But her husband and his parents pushed back, petitioning the court to dismiss the case entirely. Their argument? That Shabana, as a trans woman, didn’t qualify for protection under laws written for “women.” Because she couldn’t bear children, they claimed, she wasn’t a woman under the law.

That challenge made it to the Andhra Pradesh High Court. And that’s where it ended.

In a decision that cut straight through decades of legal ambiguity and social prejudice, Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa clarified that womanhood is not—and never has been—defined by reproductive ability. The court emphasized that denying trans women access to legal protections afforded to other women would amount to discrimination, plain and simple.

A legal system shaped by colonial norms

What’s important to understand here is that this ruling didn’t appear out of nowhere. India has a long, complicated relationship with gender—one that predates Western ideas of binary sex.

The Hijra community, often recognized as a “third gender,” has existed in Indian society for centuries. In pre-colonial times, they held positions in royal courts, performed spiritual and cultural functions, and were understood as part of the social fabric. That changed under British rule. Colonial laws, including the now-defunct Section 377, criminalized same-sex relations and imposed binary, Western gender norms that persisted for over a century.

India’s 2014 Supreme Court decision in NALSA v. Union of India was a turning point. It legally recognized the right of individuals to identify as male, female, or third gender. But even that ruling left questions around legal protections and enforcement—especially for those whose identities didn’t fit neatly into bureaucratic categories.

This latest decision closes one of those gaps.

From law to lived reality

Legal wins are important. But they don’t always change the day-to-day lives of people on the ground.

In both India and Canada, trans people still face structural violence. Legal documents don’t always reflect their identities. Healthcare systems often create more barriers than solutions. Social institutions—from police to shelters—aren’t always trained or willing to help.

Canada passed Bill C-16 in 2017, adding gender identity and expression to its Human Rights Code and Criminal Code. And yet trans people still struggle to access basic services without harassment or delay. Like India, Canada has laws on paper. But legal language means little without social implementation.

A message bigger than the case

Shabana’s case was ultimately dismissed on evidentiary grounds—the court said there wasn’t enough proof to continue the trial. But that’s not why this moment matters.

What matters is that the court said, unequivocally, that trans women can use the law. That they are entitled to the same protections as anyone else. That gender identity does not need to be justified by biology.

For those watching from outside India, this isn’t just a legal milestone. It’s a cultural one. It’s a reminder that recognition isn’t always granted from the top down. Sometimes, it’s forced through one case, one judge, one woman saying: I deserve to be seen.

The court saw her.

This Pride, look beyond the celebration

During Pride Month, it’s easy to focus on visibility, joy, and progress. All of that is worth celebrating. But this ruling asks something more. It asks us to look at the systems still deciding who gets protection and who doesn’t. Who gets recognized as fully human, and who has to keep proving it.

This was a win. A real one. But it’s not the end of the story—it’s part of a larger fight that spans courtrooms, classrooms, and kitchen tables in every country. Canada included.

Let’s not confuse legal acknowledgment with liberation. But let’s recognize the power of a ruling that, for once, got it right.