In their protest the students raised several demands including the identification of the perpetrators and action to be taken against them, as well as systemic changes such as the constitution and implementation of a transgender policy in the university.

Sabrang India spoke to Hritik, who stated that they have filed a complaint mentioning all the past attacks they faced by right-wing forces, and that the administration has accepted most of their demands. Hritik said, “Finally the Vice-Chancellor came down to meet us students. We asked why has the administration been sitting on the various complaints by Dalit and Trans people? They have agreed to our demands and released a circular that they will authorise a committee to draft a transgender policy for the upcoming prospectus for the admission cycle. They have also initiated an inquiry in the incident.”

Describing the current situation within HCU and other universities, Hritik explained, “They are not taking into account the transphobia that comes from students that are not even transgender, where Dalit men are harassed and called slurs. We need some measures, not only regulations and guidelines. These mechanisms should address all kinds of harassment and violence that students go through. Of course, infrastructural issues should be taken up. There are a lot of places and universities that are providing gender neutral hostels. But they also have to take into account that transgender students are not isolated from other students.”

In 2022, the UGC issued regulations regarding the university’s responsibility towards its transgender students in a manual titled Accessibility Guidelines and Standards for Higher Education Institutions and Universities. It highlights that university are mandated by law to have independent toilet units for ‘transgender persons,’ and also cites the  Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019  which mentions that education institutes that are “funded or recognized by the relevant governments” should have inclusive education, sports and recreational facilities for transgender persons without discrimination. However the UGC guidelines fail to recognise the need for safe spaces and built infrastructure such as hostels for transgender students.

Due to the lack of clear legislative provisions or directives, universities continue to neglect the concerns of transgender students, as evidenced in the recent case of arson from Hyderabad. This continues to be an issue that is not isolated but rather endemic to the university establishments in the country. In 2021, University of Hyderabad had similarly seen another incident where a transgender student was humiliated and harassed by a security guard.

Across India, transgender students have to struggle for finding something as simple as hostels while trying to continue their education. In 2022, it took Yashika, a dalit-trans woman from Delhi and student at Punjab University’s Centre for Human Rights and Duties, six months, nine letters, several meetings and two sit-in protests to finally receive accommodation. She went on to file a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking directions for a gender-neutral hostel on campus.

In the same year, a petition was also filed in the Karnataka High Court by Dr. Trinetra Haldar Gummaraju for gender neutral hostel facilities across all universities in the state, as she herself had been denied room in the women’s hostel of Kasturba Medical College, Manipal when she studied there for four years. The petitioner noted that transgender students are often forced out of hostels due to incidents of harassment and many students drop out and leave education due to the discrimination they face.

In Tata Institute of Social Sciences, (TISS) Mumbai, student demands and advocacy led to the creation of a separate gender neutral hostel by the administration for students which is frequently dubbed as ‘India’s first gender neutral hostel’. The hostel does not compel students to provide administrative proof or certificate for their gender identity to gain residence at the hostel because for transgender students, particularly those who come out during their academic years, there is a need to recognize the right to self-determine one’s gender identity.

Students and queer collectives across many university campuses have been consistently demanding gender neutral hostels and washrooms, as well as policies that encourage the creation of safe spaces for transgender students.

Related 

Telangana: Transgender individual brutally lynched by mob in Nizamabad

9 years since the passing of the NALSA judgment, has the cycle of discrimination and ostracism finally been broken for the transgender community?

No proposal for affirmative action in education or employment for transgenders: Govt

The post Hyderabad: University students’ belongings attacked in transphobic hate crime appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The police soon filed a complaint by registering a murder case against the five people who are suspected to be party to the attack. The police also sought to clarify that Raju was not involved in child kidnapping and that the recent kidnappings in the area were isolated incidents with no connections to organised gangs. Furthermore, the authorities confirmed that the children, earlier missing, were now reunited with their families. The Commissioner of Police of Nizamabad also made a public appeal and urged residents to not take the law into their own hands and stressed the need for people to maintain calm and patience in such times.

As per a report in Behanbox, data from the Trans Murder Monitoring (TMM) reveals that India documented 102 registered murders of transgender people between 2008 and 2021. Additionally, the National Crime Records Bureau for the year 2021 also reports that only 236 cases involving crimes against transgender persons have been officially recorded in India. The article points that these numbers are not indicative of actual figures due to the lack of complaints filed in these cases. It has been observed that trans people are extremely vulnerable to violence, in public and in private. A case from Telangana from last year when a wife hired contract killers and paid them to murder her estranged transgender spouse, is just one such example.

Related:

Transgender day of remembrance: Solidarity statement

9 years since the passing of the NALSA judgment, has the cycle of discrimination and ostracism finally been broken for the transgender community?

The post Telangana: Transgender individual brutally lynched by mob in Nizamabad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

‘Transgender [people] are humans and are citizens of our great country’

– Justice Mridula Bhatkar, Chairperson, MAT

 On November 29, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) pronounced its judgment on the issue of transgender reservation in government employment and including the option of “third gender” in online application forms. In its judgment, the tribunal observed that it cannot pass any directions to the state directing them to make reservation for transgender persons in public employment and education, but highlighted that the government ought to take more steps towards ensuring inclusion of the transgender community in mainstream society.

It is ‘obligatory’ on States to prepare welfare schemes and invent opportunities for transgender persons in public employment, the MAT said while relaxing the eligibility criteria for three transgender persons in the police department and State administration.

“The State not only has the power, but also it is obligatory on the part of the State to prepare the welfare schemes or to invent different methods and modes to provide the opportunity to transgenders of public employment.” (Para 32)

Justice (Retd) Mridula Bhatkar, Chairperson of MAT and member Medha Gadgil noted in the judgment that mere identification and acknowledgment of the existence of transgender persons in the society was not sufficient inclusion but to facilitate their appointments in Government and Public sector is inclusion in true sense.

In the judgment, MAT further stated “The Legislature with visionary approach has used the umbrella terminology ‘effective participation’ and ‘inclusion’ in Section 8 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and is akin to Article 21 of the Constitution of India enabling the appropriate Government to make various provisions and keep the welfare avenues feasible for the transgenders to live with dignity.” (Para 26)

The judgment of the Tribunal in the said case had been reserved on October 26, 2023.

The petition:

The applicants were three transgender persons, namely Arya Pujari, Vinayak Kashid and Yashwant Bhise, who had approached the MAT seeking directions to the State government for the option of ‘third gender’ in the application. They also sought reservation for trans persons citing the NALSA judgement wherein the SC directed for transpersons to the considered in the Social and Economically Backward Section (SEBC) for reservation. Notably, Pujari and Kashid had applied for the post of police constables whereas Bhise had applied for the post of talathi.

Through the petition, the applicants had highlighted that while the Maharashtra government had recognized transgender applicants subsequent to the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, no provisions for reservation for the community in state employment had been formulated by them. They had sought reservation based on the Supreme Court’s verdict in the NALSA case (National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India & Ors) in which the apex court had held that transgender persons should be treated as socially and economically backward and hence given reservation.

It is crucial to highlight that in November 22, an interim order had been passed by MAT directing the state of Maharashtra to provide a third option in the application form. The order was subsequently upheld by the Bombay High Court in December 2022. Additional directions where also issued by the High Court, urging the State to frame appropriate rules under the statutory mandate. Following this, in March 2023, the State had issued a Government Resolution identifying the third gender and providing the “other gender” option for public employment. Therefore, reservation was the only issue left for consideration.

The contentions put forth by both the parties:

During the hearings, it had been highlighted by advocate Kranti LC, counsel for the petitioners that states like Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Jharkhand and Bihar, have provided the benefit of reservations to the transgender community. The counsel had further informed the tribunal that the state of Karnataka provides 1% horizontal reservation for transgender people and out of the five aforementioned states, four have given reservation for transgenders in SEBC.

It is crucial to note that the main argument put forth by the state while opposing reservation to the transgender community is based on the silence of the law makers on this point in the Transgender Act, 2019. During the hearing, the tribunal noted that it had been vehemently pointed out by the state that since no provision for providing reservation to the community had been specified in the Act, the State Government cannot provide reservation for transgenders. It had been contended that the State Government follows the policy of the Central Government on this issue as it is a Central Legislation and, thus, to provide separate reservation to transgender is just not possible. Chief Presenting Officer for the State Swati Manchekar further highlighted that at present, Maharashtra has 62% vertical reservation and 72% horizontal reservation.

Responding to this, advocate Kranti LC highlighted the State’s contradictory stand on reservations, pointing to how the Maharashtra Government provided reservation for denotified or nomadic tribes despite no such reservation in the Central Government. The counsel also referred to the recent decision of granting reservation to the Maratha community.

Referring to this, MAT observed the State had crossed its vertical reservation cap of 50%.

Observations by the Court:

In its 24-pages long judgments, the most important observation made by the Tribunal is that even nearly nine years after the passing of the landmark NALSA judgement, not a single open transgender person is part of the 5.5 lakhs Government employees in Maharashtra.

“As on today in State of Maharashtra approximately 5.5 lakh Government servants are working on various posts in various Departments. But not a single transgender who has come out of closet has got a job in the Government sector.” (Para 27)

The Tribunal further emphasised its disappointment on the lack of inclusion and representation of the transgender community and stated, “This fact itself speaks in volume. The transgenders are humans, are citizens of our great Country are waiting for their inclusion in the main stream”. (Para 27)

Referring to Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits discrimination in public employment on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, etc., the Tribunal provides “The Transgenders are people in minority. Majority forms the Government, but majority cannot suppress or ignore the rights of marginalized section. The calibre and morality of the Democracy is tested on these yardsticks.” (Para 32)

MAT also drew parallels between the struggle for equal right for women and transgender people, noting that the transgender community is at a position worse than women in our society as they are ridiculed or subjected to misplaced abnormal curiosity.

“The case of transgenders is worse than the women. Learned counsel Kranti has demonstrated how transgenders are ridiculed or subjected to misplaced abnormal curiosity, hence social movements of this class are very much restricted. Therefore, mere acknowledgement of their separate identity is not enough to provide them opportunity in public employment.” (Para 32)

Referring to the argument of the state for not providing more reservation, the Tribunal highlights that the Transgenders Act had opened various methods of ensuring inclusion of the transgender community, “The stand taken by the Respondent-State that they cannot provide reservation more than 62%, though is consistent with the law about 50% cap laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra), the Transgender Act itself has opened the other doors of inclusion and participation of transgenders in the public employment.” (Para 32)

The Tribunal further stressed upon the obligation of the state to prepare welfare schemes for providing employment opportunity to the transgender community and added that “Combine reading of Sections 3 & 8 of the Transgender Act makes it clear that the State not only has the power, but also it is obligatory on the part of the State to prepare the welfare schemes or to invent different methods and modes to provide the opportunity to transgenders of public employment.” (Para 32)

Calling public employment to be a “handicapped race for the transgender persons” the MAT panel shed light upon the paralyzed of the transgender community owing to the negative approach of society.

Particularly, MAT also rejected the State’s “misplaced” apprehension that if reservation is provided to transgender persons in the public sector, it will lead to an increase the tendency of people “falsely” coming out of closet as transgenders and opting for a surgery. In its judgment, the Tribunal provided “This fear is absolutely misplaced. Getting in Government job depends on number of factors like education, fitness, vacancies etc.” (Para 33)

Lastly, the MAT emphasised upon the need for concrete affirmative action and rejected the argument put forth by the State that was consistent with the Transgender Act as it allowed the applicants to compete as a transgender person in public employment. “Only by acknowledging the third gender, the Government has not made adequate opportunity available to the transgenders. More steps are required to be taken by the Respondent-State for effective participation and meaningful inclusion of the transgenders in the mainstream.” (Para 36)

The Tribunal noted Section 8 of the Transgender Act required the Government to take measures for the inclusion of transgender persons in society as it is bound by the 2019 Act.

MAT gave illustrations of policy decisions expected by the State to positively discriminate transgenders in public employment. The tribunal recommended

• a separate lower benchmark for transgenders as a class in Preliminary and Main Examination
• To give grace marks to reach the cut-off marks and/or
• To give more chances to appear for the examination by giving age relaxation. and/or
• To offer concession in educational qualification and experience.

Decision of the Tribunal:

Through the judgment, the MAT panel held that it could not direct the State to grant reservation for transgender persons in employment, but decided to relax the criteria for the applicants in the following manner:

• Applicants are to be given the necessary grace marks to reach the cut-off marks or applicants who have reached 50% to be considered for the concerned posts.
• Age relaxation for applicant who has scored minimum 45% marks.

The complete judgment can be read here:

Related:

Transgender day of remembrance: Solidarity statement

Transgender Woman is a “Bride” under Hindu Marriage Act: 2019 Judgement, Madras HC

9 years since the passing of the NALSA judgment, has the cycle of discrimination and ostracism finally been broken for the transgender community?

No proposal for affirmative action in education or employment for transgenders: Govt

Delhi HC Approached for Separate Public Job Vacancies for Transgender Persons

M’tra Govt moves HC against MAT Order directing inclusion of Transgenders in police recruitment

Supreme Court directs Centre to frame policy on jobs for transgender persons

The post MAT relaxes age criteria, makes provision for grace marks for transgender community in public employment, refuses to direct state to grant reservation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Calling on all people for a wider and more sustained movement for change, the Forum calls for a commitment to building a social and political system, where all persons, regardless of their gender and sexuality, are entitled to safety, rights, dignity and equity, and don’t have to lead ‘second-class lives’ or succumb to discrimination and ‘death’ by gendered hate, humiliation and violence.

As is known, TDoR is observed annually in the month of November, to honour the memory of transgender persons whose lives are taken away by violence – institutional, systemic/structural, or familial. It is important to acknowledge the presence of these different kinds of violence inflicted on trans persons, since they highlight the existence of it in both direct/overt and invisible forms.

The Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDoR) began initially in 1999, as a vigil organized by Gwendolyn Ann Smith, a transgender woman and activist, to honour the memory of Rita Hester, an African-American transgender woman who was brutally murdered in November 1998. Denied dignity in life and ‘death’, Rita’s killing led to some of her loved ones to mark the occasion to respectfully remember her. Since then, TDoR has been a day to remind all of us globally that trans lives can’t be erased in reality and in memory.

Crucially, it needs to be mentioned that the systemic and structural kinds of violence are often invisibilised – be it through underreporting of trans-specific violence, to the inequality in socio-legal structures (such as delay and denial of issuing of necessary documents documenting the transgender identity of the person) leading to exclusion of trans persons from basic rights such as the right to food, housing, social security, healthcare and equality of access to justice. As one report shows through case studies on transgender rights across the globe, structural inequalities lead to poverty, marginalisation, and “may also prevent trans people from accessing healthcare services”. This lack of access to basic rights exemplifies a form of structural violence.

Institutional violence occurs and is driven by prejudice, bias against and ridicule of trans persons who come to healthcare centres to seek healthcare or gender-affirmative care. Lack of sensitization of healthcare professionals and officials directly leads to a lack of access for trans persons who may want to access public spaces such as healthcare centres, police stations (for filing complaints/reporting crimes) etc. In educational institutes such as schools and colleges and places of employment, shaming, bullying and other forms of mental and emotional abuse adversely impact trans persons who are unable to find a way out of this institutional violence where they also have to go to access and avail their basic rights.

Natal family violence is one of the leading causes of ‘death’ of transgender persons. In a heteronormative society, to grow up as a person non-conforming of the binary genders is a harrowing experience for any child. While adulthood (18 years) enables a certain level of freedom to the trans persons, being a minor mandates them to have to continue living with their natal family which may not be accepting and often be actively violent towards their trans children. Transness is considered synonymous with violent forms of ‘mental illness’ in most cases, which is a dangerously misinformed stereotype held by many in our country. Such stereotypes and prejudices lead to trans children (at times even trans adults) being subjected to “corrective” therapies and measures which often include rape to “correct” the sexuality of trans children. Intimate partner violence in relationships where trans persons are involved is also one of the main causes of direct violence faced by transpersons.

The violence is intrinsic to the family as a structure which is in place to maintain caste purity and acts as a mechanism of patriarchal control. But the family (in its traditional, heteronormative, monogamous, and reproductive form) is also the only form of relation that the state recognizes for a person even when this person faces violence from it, which means that they still get to make decisions for them (where they live, their partners, medical decisions etc.) and so on. Additionally, in a context in which many fundamental rights are defined in relation to familial relations, or imply these, and families are understood as exclusive of the kind of relationships that we establish among ourselves, it means that trans people (and kinship/care networks) by default do not get access to availing their rights.

These instances are evidence of the violence against trans persons that are not isolated instances, but a larger pervasive phenomenon symptomatic of the kind of society we live in – transphobic, patriarchal, prejudiced and violative of basic human rights, at large. These are also embedded in the state and other institutions, in the family structure and caste system in India. Given these intersections and their nexus and what they lead to, there are many demands raised and fought for by trans persons in India.

TDoR is thus also observed as a day to reiterate the demands of the transgender community. In India, these demands have been long-sought and actively advocated for by trans movements, activists, lawyers and various individuals.

The AIFF, while extending this solidarity with the transgender community in the following reflections has demanded: 

1. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act was passed by the Indian Parliament inAugust 2019 with insufficient consultation with transgender persons and groups. Multiple protests highlighted some key problems with the draft Bill, but except a few, many necessary changes were ignored. The Act remains in contradiction with the principles articulated under the NALSA judgement (April, 2014), in that it puts in place a system which is ambiguous on the issue of self-determination.While some of the provisions of the Act can prove to be enabling, they are lacking in effective  implementation. It has been four years since the passage of the Act, yet the mandate of Trans Act 2019 and Rules, 2020 has not been followed through effectively across many states in the context of anti-discrimination protection, education, healthcare, livelihoods, raising awareness and sensitization amongst various sections of society and state etc. 

2. The Trans Act 2019 mandates competent authorities to ensure access to medical and healthservices for Transgender community, which includes gender-affirming services. However, the lack of affordable gender-affirming services coupled with hostility and bias, renders most medical setups inaccessible to trans persons.

3. Excessive delays in the issuance of Transgender ID Cards, along with a lack of awareness and sensitivity in officials towards trans persons, often accompanied by prejudice, is resulting in delays in making essential documents for trans persons which are needed to avail basic services and access basic rights, including the right to education and the right to work.

4. The demand for affirmative action in the form of reservation for trans persons is an extension of the fundamental right to education, right to work and right to representation. These demands are for reservation in the spheres of education, employment and politics. This underscores the importance of Horizontal Reservations for Transgender persons owing to the double marginality faced by transgender persons from oppressed caste and social locations. Vertical reservations (as accorded in the Constitutional categories of SC, ST and OBC), if replicated for trans persons, shall require them to choose between their caste or gender identity and are hence unfair.

5. The demand for an effective, functional and inclusive “Transgender Welfare Board” inall states, with adequate budgets, to be constituted (as mandated by the Trans Act 2019) to act as an avenue for bringing up of aforementioned issues.

6. Marking the Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDoR) officially and taking effective,urgent steps to end all forms of discrimination and violence against trans persons. Stringent legal action and conviction in all cases of killings and violence against transpersons.

There are many ongoing regional struggles to pursue the above demands – in states like Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, Assam, Manipur, Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi etc. The AIFF also extends its  solidarity to the ‘Trutiya Panthi Hakka Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti’  in Maharashtra, ‘Trans Rights Now Collective’ and trans movements in Tamil Nadu and other states for their sustained struggles to assert Horizontal Reservations.

The post Transgender day of remembrance: Solidarity statement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Evolution of Judicial Pronouncements

Recent judgments by various High Courts across India have been instrumental in challenging societal norms and advancing the rights of the queer and transgender community. These legal milestones embody the increasing recognition of the LGBTQIA+ rights movement on both national and global scales. By embracing a more inclusive perspective, these judgments signal a departure from traditional norms, shedding light on the significance of individual identity and personal freedom.

Catalysing Change through Legal Precedent

Legal judgments wield considerable influence in shaping societal norms and ensuring justice for marginalized communities. The judgments delivered by the courts hold the power to set critical precedents that can facilitate broader legal reforms and transformative social change. By interpreting laws in the context of evolving gender identities and sexual orientations, these courts have paved the way for a more equitable society, one that values diversity and respects individual autonomy.

The SC Handbook: An Emblem of Progress

The Supreme Court’s endeavour to combat gender stereotypes through its comprehensive handbook stands as a testament to its commitment to nurturing an inclusive society. This handbook, adorned with LGBTQIA+-friendly terms and phrases, serves as a beacon of hope for marginalized individuals seeking recognition, understanding, and legal protection. Its emphasis on unbiased language and fair representation underscores the Court’s recognition of the power of words in shaping perceptions and attitudes.

The SC handbook’s mention of gender-neutral pronouns, acknowledgment of non-binary identities, and avoidance of heteronormative assumptions aligns with the broader movement to promote equality and respect. This handbook, with its innovative approach, not only guides legal professionals but also contributes to a broader cultural shift by encouraging sensitivity and empathy.

Synthesis of Progress

The intersection of recent court judgments and the SC handbook underscores the harmony between legal discourse and the evolving societal consciousness. The judgments themselves, often peppered with LGBTQIA+-friendly terminology, reflect a broader acceptance of diverse identities within the legal framework. This convergence fosters an environment where legal practitioners, judges, and society at large are encouraged to engage with these concepts without preconceived biases.

Beyond the Horizon:

As we navigate the intricate tapestry of LGBTQIA+ rights in the context of Indian legal jurisprudence, it becomes evident that these recent judgments and the SC handbook are stepping stones toward a more equitable society. They herald an era where queer and transgender individuals can assert their rights and identities without fear of discrimination. However, this journey is far from over; the road ahead entails continuous legal advocacy, widespread education, and a collective commitment to challenging stereotypes.

In a world where visibility and recognition for LGBTQIA+ individuals are becoming increasingly vital, legal judgments and documents like the SC handbook carry immense significance. Through these milestones, the Indian legal system not only establishes legal precedents but also sends a powerful message of inclusion and affirmation. As we celebrate the strides made so far, we must remain vigilant in pushing for further progress, ensuring that every individual, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation, can live with dignity, equality, and pride.

I. Patna High Court Judgment: A Step towards Inclusive Enumeration

Case Summary:

The Reshma Prasad v. State of Bihar case presented a unique legal challenge concerning the inclusion of transgender individuals in the Caste Survey of 2022 conducted by the State Government of Bihar. Reshma Prasad, the petitioner, argued that including transgender individuals in the caste enumeration violated their fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, as gender and caste are distinct identities. This case was heard by a two judge bench which included the HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY. The judgement was delivered by the chief justice of the Patna High Court.

Analysis of the Court’s Approach towards LGBTQIA+ Rights:

The Patna High Court’s approach to LGBTQIA+ rights in this case showcased a delicate balance between acknowledging distinct identities and promoting inclusive welfare measures. The court recognized the intent behind the caste survey – to uplift marginalized groups – while also respecting transgender individuals’ right to self-determination.

Queer and Transgender-Friendly Terms/Phrases:

In its observations, the court exhibited sensitivity by referring to transgender individuals and their concerns with accuracy and respect. The court recognized that the transgender community seeks upliftment and equal rights and that the inclusion in the caste list was likely an administrative mistake rather than a deliberate infringement.

Implications on Community’s Rights Progression:

This judgment holds significant implications for the rights progression of the queer and transgender community. By addressing the distinct identities of gender and caste, the court set a precedent that acknowledges the complexity of transgender rights. The court’s emphasis on the importance of targeted welfare measures for transgender individuals signifies an understanding of their unique needs and challenges.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment:

Distinct Identities of Caste and Gender: The court was quick to discern that transgender identity is not synonymous with caste identity. By asserting that individuals, irrespective of their conformity to conventional gender norms, should be empowered to determine their gender, the court aligned its stance with the evolving understanding of gender diversity. Notably, the court cited a clarification by the State Government, highlighting the provision for respondents to indicate their gender as “other” and independently specify their caste.

Mitigation of Concerns: The court’s approach to mitigating the petitioner’s concerns showcases its commitment to striking a harmonious balance. While recognizing that the inclusion of transgender individuals in the caste enumeration might have been an oversight, the court advocated for a more nuanced approach. It suggested the possibility of identifying the transgender community separately, allowing for a targeted assessment of their socio-economic and educational status. This approach, the court emphasized, aimed at improving the lives of transgender individuals and providing them with better living conditions without perpetuating caste-based advantages.

The Patna High Court’s judgment in the Reshma Prasad case serves as an emblem of progress in recognizing the rights of the queer and transgender community. By thoughtfully addressing the interplay between gender identity and caste enumeration, the court not only upheld fundamental rights but also demonstrated a willingness to adapt legal perspectives to an evolving understanding of gender. This judgment reverberates as a milestone in the legal journey towards equality and inclusion for the LGBTQIA+ community, paving the way for future cases and affirming the importance of nuanced consideration in shaping policy and rights frameworks.

II. Allahabad High Court Judgment: Pioneering Transgender Rights

Overview of the Case and the Court’s Decision:

In the case of Neha Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others (WRIT – A No. 7796 of 2023), the Allahabad High Court addressed the rights of transgender individuals, with Neha Singh, a Woman Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, at the center. Neha, identifying with a male personality, experiences an innate urge to connect with females despite having male physical characteristics. Seeking Gender Dysphoria recognition, Neha aims to undergo Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) to align her body with her true gender. This judgement was delivered by Justice Ajit Kumar.

Examination of the Court’s Stance on LGBTQIA+ Rights Evolution:

The court’s stance reflects a progressive understanding of LGBTQIA+ rights evolution, hinged on the landmark judgment in the case of “National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and Others” (2014 5 SCC 438). This case laid the foundation for recognizing gender identity as an intrinsic facet of human dignity and autonomy, thereby safeguarding it under fundamental rights.

Notable LGBTQIA+ Inclusive Language from the Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court employed inclusive language in its judgment, emphasizing the significance of gender identity and the right to self-identified gender. This approach mirrors the sentiment of the Supreme Court’s 2014 verdict, acknowledging the right of individuals to choose and assert their gender identity, be it male, female, or third gender.

Contributions to the Broader Narrative of Rights for the Community

The judgment’s significance reverberates within the broader narrative of LGBTQIA+ rights. By upholding the right of individuals like Neha Singh to undergo gender-affirming procedures like SRS, the court enforces the principles established in the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. This legislation emphasizes the recognition of gender identity and the need for healthcare provisions for transgender individuals, including SRS and hormonal therapy.

Key Aspects of the Case:

1. Supreme Court’s Recognition of Gender Identity: The excerpt underscores the Supreme Court’s assertion that gender identity is pivotal to human dignity and forms an integral aspect of fundamental rights.
2. Upholding the Right to Choose Gender Identity: The court reiterates the Supreme Court’s stand, affirming individuals’ right to self-identify their gender as male, female, or third gender, establishing it as an essential dimension of the right to life.
3. Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019: The mention of this Act illustrates the legislative strides taken to ensure medical care and recognition for transgender individuals. The Act aligns with the broader thrust of the judgment.
4. Precedents and Application: The reference to similar cases highlights the broader legal landscape’s alignment with recognizing gender identity post-SRS. It underscores the consistency in judicial interpretation.
5. Director General of Police’s Role: The court emphasizes the constitutional validity of gender reassignment surgery and stresses the importance of prompt consideration of Neha Singh’s application for SRS by the Director General of Police.
6. Court Directions and Compliance: The court’s directions underscore its commitment to upholding transgender rights. It not only directs immediate action on Neha Singh’s application but also calls for appropriate legislation and healthcare provisions to ensure comprehensive compliance.

The Allahabad High Court’s judgment in the Neha Singh case emerges as a remarkable step in advancing transgender rights. By aligning its stance with the Supreme Court’s pronouncements and the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the court emphasizes the importance of recognizing and respecting gender identity as an inherent facet of human rights. Through this judgment, the court contributes significantly to fostering an environment of inclusivity, dignity, and equality for transgender individuals within the legal framework.

III. Bombay High Court Order: A Trailblazing Path towards Inclusivity

Case Summary and Key Points of the Order:

A recent division bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Gauri Godse, handled a plea by a same-sex couple who sought protection and sensitivity in dealing with LGBTQIA+ related cases. The court’s proactive engagement demonstrated its recognition of the pressing need for specialized guidelines to address challenges faced by the LGBTQIA+ community.

Analysis of the Court’s Perspective Regarding Queer and Transgender Rights:

The Bombay High Court’s perspective on queer and transgender rights emerges as progressive and inclusive. By actively considering and addressing the unique concerns of LGBTQIA+ individuals, the court affirms its commitment to protecting their rights and dignity. This perspective reflects a nuanced understanding of the struggles and vulnerabilities faced by this community.

Identification of LGBTQIA+ Affirming Terms/Phrases within the Order:

The court’s recognition of the broader issues at play, such as “missing or kidnapping complaints against lesbian or gay couples,” underscores its sensitivity to the particular challenges faced by LGBTQIA+ individuals. The court’s use of these terms serves to humanize and validate the experiences of same-sex couples, emphasizing their right to protection and fair treatment.

Significance of the Order in the Context of Rights Progression:

The Bombay High Court’s proactive approach and emphasis on formulating guidelines for the sensitization of law enforcement agencies showcase a significant step towards advancing LGBTQIA+ rights. By recognizing the need for specialized measures to protect same-sex couples and proposing the formation of a committee inclusive of LGBTQIA+ community members, the court sets a precedent for judicial activism that fosters inclusivity, equality, and human rights.

Key Aspects of the Order:

Recognition of the Broader Issue: The court’s proactive stance goes beyond addressing the immediate case. By acknowledging the larger issue of harassment and conflicts faced by LGBTQIA+ individuals, the court showcases a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and aims to establish a supportive framework.

Integration of Stakeholders: The court’s suggestion to involve LGBTQIA+ community members in the committee formation emphasizes an inclusive approach. By inviting those directly impacted to contribute, the court ensures that guidelines are not only effective but also informed by lived experiences.

Sensitization of Police: The court’s emphasis on sensitizing law enforcement in LGBTQIA+-related cases demonstrates a commitment to combating discrimination. This approach aims to prevent undue harassment and ensures that police interactions respect the rights and dignity of LGBTQIA+ individuals.

Alignment with International Standards: Referencing guidelines from the Madras High Court demonstrates the Bombay High Court’s alignment with international standards of LGBTQIA+ rights. This approach reflects a commitment to adopting successful practices from around the world.

The Bombay High Court’s active engagement with LGBTQIA+ concerns and its recommendation to create guidelines for sensitizing law enforcement agencies is a remarkable stride towards equality and inclusivity. By recognizing unique challenges and proposing solutions that involve LGBTQIA+ voices, the court showcases a profound commitment to fostering an environment of understanding and respect. This order contributes significantly to the advancement of LGBTQIA+ rights and represents a beacon of hope for future progress within the Indian legal landscape.

IV. Madras High Court Judgment: Catalysing Transgender Rights and Social Inclusion

Brief Outline of the Case and its Outcome:

The Madras High Court recently rendered a significant judgment addressing a discriminatory resolution by the Nainarkuppam Village Panchayat. The resolution denied land ownership rights (land patta) to transgender individuals, citing concerns about local culture and youth. The court emphatically struck down this discriminatory resolution and asserted the imperative of social inclusion. This Judgement was delivered by Justice S.M Subramanium.

Evaluation of the Court’s Attitude towards LGBTQIA+ Rights Advancement:

The Madras High Court’s attitude towards LGBTQIA+ rights advancement in this judgment is unequivocally progressive. The court robustly upholds the rights of transgender persons, challenges discrimination, and highlights the constitutional responsibility to protect marginalized communities from injustices.

Spotting LGBTQIA+ Friendly Terminology Used in the Judgment:

The judgment employs inclusive language by consistently referring to transgender individuals as “transgender persons.” This terminology reflects respect for their self-identified identities and aligns with contemporary LGBTQIA+ affirmative language.

The Judgment’s Role in the Trajectory of Queer and Transgender Rights:

This judgment plays a pivotal role in advancing queer and transgender rights. By vehemently rejecting a discriminatory resolution and advocating for the inclusion of transgender persons, the court reinforces the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and dignity. The judgment contributes to the broader trajectory of recognizing the rights of marginalized communities within the Indian legal framework.

Analysing the Madras High Court Judgment on Transgender Rights and Inclusion:

Challenging Discriminatory Resolutions: The case revolved around the discriminatory resolution of the Nainarkuppam Village Panchayat, which the court deemed unconstitutional. The court’s unambiguous stance on addressing discriminatory practices underscores its commitment to justice and equality.

Resisting Withdrawal for a Just Cause: The court’s refusal to permit withdrawal of the writ petition by the Panchayat President showcases its unwavering dedication to safeguarding constitutional values. This stance reflects the court’s recognition of its responsibility to address social issues with lasting implications.

Transgender Rights and Reservation: Justice SM Subramaniam’s emphasis on recognizing transgender rights and advocating for their reservation in law making forums is a significant stride towards inclusivity. The court’s reliance on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, reaffirms the relevance of this legislation in promoting equality.

Promoting Inclusivity and Eradicating Stigma: The court’s metaphor of diverse gifts underscores the importance of dismantling stereotypes and embracing diversity. This resonant language reinforces the need for a more inclusive and empathetic society that respects the uniqueness of every individual.

Safeguarding Constitutional Mandates: The court’s unwavering commitment to upholding constitutional mandates is evident in its refusal to allow withdrawal. This principle reinforces the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional values, particularly when marginalized communities are marginalized.

Direction for Action: The court’s proactive directives for action against the Panchayat President and members, as well as its mandate for granting land patta and participation rights to transgender persons, underscores its commitment to effecting tangible change. This reflects a holistic approach towards dismantling discrimination and ensuring practical implementation of rights.

The Madras High Court’s judgment serves as a beacon of hope for social justice and inclusion. By taking a resolute stand against discrimination and promoting the rights and dignity of transgender individuals, the court sets a remarkable precedent. This judgment demonstrates the judiciary’s transformative potential in fostering a more equal and compassionate society for all, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

V. Kerala High Court Judgment: Empowering Intersex Rights and Autonomy

Summary of the Case and the Ruling:

The Kerala High Court delivered a ground breaking judgment on August 7, 2023, addressing intersex rights and non-consensual medical interventions. The case revolves around parents seeking permission for a non-consensual genital reconstructive surgery on their intersex child. The judgment navigates intricate considerations, including the child’s autonomy, parental rights, medical ethics, and broader human rights principles. This judgement was delivered by Justive V.J Arun.

Discussion of the Court’s Viewpoint on LGBTQIA+ Rights Progression:

The Kerala High Court’s viewpoint reflects a progressive stance on LGBTQIA+ rights. By delving into the complexities of gender identity, biological sex, and international legal frameworks, the court underscores the importance of safeguarding the rights, autonomy, and dignity of intersex individuals.

Noteworthy LGBTQIA+ Inclusive Phrases or Expressions Featured in the Judgment:

The judgment consistently employs the term “intersex” to refer to individuals born with ambiguous genitalia. This terminology reflects an inclusive and respectful approach, recognizing the diverse experiences and identities within the LGBTQIA+ spectrum.

How This Judgment Contributes to the Overall Landscape of the Community’s Rights:

The Kerala High Court’s judgment significantly contributes to the advancement of LGBTQIA+ rights:

1. Legal Precedent: The judgment establishes a precedent that prioritizes the autonomy and rights of intersex individuals, providing a framework for future cases to uphold human rights principles.
2. Protection of Vulnerable Individuals: By addressing the vulnerability of intersex infants and children, the judgment safeguards them from potentially harmful non-consensual medical interventions.
3. Promoting Awareness and Education: The judgment encourages awareness and education about intersex rights and gender diversity, fostering a more inclusive societal perspective.
4. Advancing Human Rights: This judgment aligns with global efforts to promote equal treatment for all individuals, irrespective of gender identity or biological sex, thus contributing to the broader LGBTQIA+ rights movement.

The Kerala High Court’s judgment signifies a significant step forward in the realm of intersex rights and gender identity. By prioritizing autonomy, inclusivity, and the protection of vulnerable individuals, the judgment resonates as a beacon of progressiveness. It underscores the evolving legal landscape’s dedication to preserving and championing the rights of all individuals, regardless of their gender identity or expression. This landmark case serves as a testament to the power of the judiciary in shaping a more equitable society that respects and honours individual agency in determining their gender identity.

VI. Supreme Court’s Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes: Nurturing Inclusion and Progress

The struggle for gender equality and recognition of diverse identities in India has witnessed significant strides, supported by progressive judgments and the judiciary’s commitment to combatting gender stereotypes. This analysis explores key Supreme Court judgments impacting the queer and transgender community, the utilization of LGBTQIA+ friendly terms, and the role of the new handbook in shaping perceptions and legal discourse.

The Ongoing Battle against Stereotypes:

The Indian Supreme Court’s recognition of the harmful impact of gender stereotypes is crucial. The judgments highlighted showcase the Court’s dedication to challenging stereotypes that perpetuate gender inequality. By dismantling discriminatory provisions and rejecting harmful stereotypes, the Court lays the foundation for progress not only for women but also for the queer and transgender community.

Transcending Stereotypes: Progress for the Queer and Transgender Community:

While the provided handbook emphasizes gender stereotypes impacting women, the principles extend to the queer and transgender community. The fight against stereotypes goes beyond gender, encompassing gender expressions and sexual orientations. The Court’s focus on dignity, privacy, and credibility resonates with queer and transgender individuals facing discrimination and violence.

LGBTQIA+ Friendly Terms and Inclusive Language:

The new handbook’s emphasis on inclusive language and LGBTQIA+ friendly terms is a significant stride towards recognizing and affirming the rights of queer and transgender individuals. By using respectful and affirming language that acknowledges self-identified gender, the Court underscores the importance of linguistic sensitivity in fostering respect and dignity. Terms like “gender identity,” “queer,” and “transgender” reflect the Court’s commitment to diverse identities and avoiding marginalization.

Linking Handbook Recommendations to Earlier Judgments:

The handbook’s recommendations align with earlier judgments:

1. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): This judgment decriminalized same-sex relations, recognizing LGBTQIA+ individuals’ right to love without fear of criminalization.
2. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014): This case affirmed transgender rights, laying the foundation for recognition and acceptance.
3. Anita v. State of Maharashtra (2016): Recognizing the right to marriage and equality for transgender individuals.

Impact on Shaping Perceptions and Legal Discourse:

The handbook’s role is pivotal in shaping perceptions and legal discourse. It signals a shift towards acknowledging diverse gender identities and breaking deeply rooted prejudices. By using inclusive language, recognizing survivors’ credibility, and rejecting discriminatory laws, the Court propels queer and transgender rights forward.

The Indian Supreme Court’s journey towards dismantling gender stereotypes and embracing inclusive language underscores its evolving commitment to human rights. The discussed judgments exemplify the Court’s determination to challenge biases, ensuring justice for all, irrespective of gender identity or sexual orientation. As India progresses towards inclusivity, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in shaping norms, perceptions, and laws. The struggle for the queer and transgender community’s rights aligns with the broader pursuit of gender equality and justice.

VII. Comparative Analysis and Overall Progression: Navigating the Evolution of LGBTQIA+ Rights

Drawing Comparisons between Judgments’ Approaches:

A comparative analysis of the discussed judgments reveals both unique nuances and shared themes in their approaches towards LGBTQIA+ rights. While each case addresses distinct issues, a consistent commitment to dismantling stereotypes, protecting autonomy, and promoting inclusivity is evident.

Identifying Common Themes and Trends:

1. Autonomy and Identity: Across judgments, a common thread is the emphasis on an individual’s autonomy to determine their gender identity. Whether discussing transgender rights or non-consensual interventions, the courts underscore an individual’s right to self-identification, free from societal norms.
2. Protection against Discrimination: Discrimination emerges as a central concern. The courts recognize that discrimination against queer and transgender individuals perpetuates inequality. The need to challenge discriminatory practices and provide protection against harm is a recurrent theme.
3. Inclusive Language: The embrace of inclusive language is consistent. Courts recognize that using derogatory terms perpetuates stereotypes and marginalizes LGBTQIA+ individuals. Inclusive language is viewed as a powerful tool to foster acceptance and respect.

Collective Impact on LGBTQIA+ Rights Advancement:

Collectively, these judgments represent significant strides in the advancement of LGBTQIA+ rights in India. They challenge discriminatory laws, protect autonomy, and promote inclusivity. The judgments have sparked important legal reforms and underscore the judiciary’s role as a driving force for societal change.

The Role of Inclusive Language: Promoting Understanding and Acceptance:

Inclusive language stands as a unifying element in the judgments. The courts’ usage of LGBTQIA+ friendly terms signifies a broader commitment to fostering understanding and acceptance. This linguistic shift goes beyond semantics; it signals respect for diverse identities and challenges deeply ingrained biases.

The comparative analysis of these judgments underscores the Indian judiciary’s evolution in tackling LGBTQIA+ rights. The collective emphasis on autonomy, protection against discrimination, and the power of inclusive language reflects a growing understanding of the complexities surrounding gender identity and sexuality. These judgments collectively contribute to dismantling stereotypes, fostering inclusivity, and laying the foundation for a more equitable society. As the Indian legal landscape continues to evolve, these cases serve as milestones in the journey towards justice and equality for all, irrespective of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Conclusion: Navigating the Path to Equality and Inclusion

The journey through the analysed judgments has illuminated a remarkable evolution in the recognition and protection of LGBTQIA+ rights in India. A tapestry of cases spanning diverse aspects of queer and transgender rights presents several key takeaways that underscore the positive trajectory of these rights.

Key Takeaways:

1. Autonomy and Inclusivity: Across cases, the courts consistently prioritize individual autonomy, acknowledging that one’s gender identity is a deeply personal matter. The emphasis on inclusivity in language and rights resonates as a cornerstone of these judgments.
2. Challenging Stereotypes: The Indian judiciary stands resolute against gender stereotypes and discrimination. Through progressive decisions, stereotypes are debunked, and a commitment to an equitable society is reinforced.
3. Intersectionality: The judgments reflect an understanding of the intersectionality of identities. While the focus remains on LGBTQIA+ rights, the courts acknowledge the broader implications on society and promote comprehensive change.
4. Legal Precedents: Each case contributes to building a robust legal framework for queer and transgender rights. The recognition of international standards and past legal precedents solidifies the jurisprudential foundation for equality.

Positive Trajectory:

The analysed judgments collectively narrate a story of progress, from the decriminalization of same-sex relations to the recognition of transgender rights and protection against discrimination. Each judgment reflects the judiciary’s endeavour to ensure that societal norms do not infringe upon the rights and dignity of queer and transgender individuals.

Evolving Legal Landscape and Societal Attitudes:

These judgments mirror the ongoing evolution of both the legal landscape and societal attitudes. While the legal victories are undeniable, they mirror a broader societal awakening to the need for acceptance and inclusivity. The resonance between judicial decisions and shifting societal paradigms underscores a shared commitment to fostering an environment where diversity thrives.

A Glimpse into the Future:

Looking forward, the harmonious interplay of judicial decisions and inclusive language holds immense promise. The courts’ role as champions of justice and equality is pivotal. Inclusive language, as seen in the Supreme Court’s handbook, not only transcends courtroom decorum but also ushers in a new era of understanding and acceptance.

Conclusion in Progression:

The journey from challenging stereotypes to protecting autonomy and promoting inclusive language is a testament to India’s march towards a more equitable society. As the nation continues to evolve, the convergence of progressive judgments and inclusive language holds the promise of further advancements in LGBTQIA+ rights. The legal framework stands fortified, and as society continues to grow, the principles underscored in these judgments will guide the path to a more inclusive, accepting, and just future.

Related:

Courts take forward steps for India’s LGBTQIA+ community

Purge incorrect, derogatory references to LGBTQIA+ persons: National Medical Commission

Madras HC issues guidelines for sensitisation of stakeholders in LGBTQIA+ matters

Police need sensitisation on couple’s autonomous life choices: Bombay HC

Liberating Life through the Law

India’s LGBTQIA+ struggle: beyond legal victories, battle for true equality remains

When an Indian court allowed a LGBTIQ+ marriage

The post Unravelling India’s Legal Evolution: LGBTQIA+ Rights and the Supreme Court Handbook appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The nation has made tremendous strides towards public acceptance and legislative reform in recent years. To really accept the LGBTQIA+ community and secure their rights, respect, and wellbeing, however, much work remains.

Like many other nations, India has struggled with social prejudices and stereotypes towards the LGBTQIA+ population that are deeply rooted. The path to equality entails confronting these stereotypes and removing the obstacles that prevent LGBTQIA+ people from fully participating in all facets of life. By fostering an inclusive atmosphere, we provide people the chance to right past wrongs, advance communication, and increase understanding among many facets of society. As a result, the social fabric becomes more equitable and peaceful.

It is critical to acknowledge and uphold the fundamental human rights and dignity of every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, in a varied and diversified community like India. By guaranteeing that no one is marginalised or excluded, an inclusive environment upholds the idea that everyone deserves respect, justice, and protection against discrimination.

For upholding human dignity, addressing social injustices, promoting mental and emotional well-being, facilitating personal and professional growth, catalysing positive social change, and advocating for legal reforms, it is crucial to create an equal, inclusive, enabling, and just environment for the LGBTQIA+ community in India.

India may make tremendous progress towards establishing a society that celebrates individuality, upholds human rights, and promotes inclusivity through embracing variety, dispelling prejudices, and providing equal rights. It will take the combined efforts of individuals, communities, institutions, and legislators to create an LGBTQIA+-friendly environment, but the final result will be a stronger, more vibrant, and progressive country that upholds the principles of equality and justice for all.

This piece attempts to go deeper into the court rulings, decrees, and directives that have made it possible for the LGBTQ+ community to flourish in an inclusive, just, and equitable environment.

Let’s take a walk through these pivotal moments for the community, in the honour of the pride month.

Judgments furthering equality

A theory of law, legal positivism[1], posits that different judges, would give different outcomes to the same legal problem in front of them.

The principles, moral convictions, and ethical frameworks that people hold dear are referred to as values and beliefs. Judges’ decision-making is influenced by their personal values and opinions, just like that of any other person. These individual viewpoints may include how they perceive justice, fairness, individual liberties, and social norms. Judges may interpret legal principles in light of their views and beliefs when applying the law to particular instances. Judges may emphasise various legal reasons, give different weights to opposing interests, and eventually arrive at different conclusions as a result of these disparities in attitudes and views.

Different Judges then, may arrive at different sets of findings from the same factual situations based on their personal values and opinions. Putting aside one’s personal beliefs and giving a judgement is a challenge.

The LGBTQIA+ community saw a different kind of glimmer of hope in the case of Mrs. S. Sushma & Ors. v. The Director-General of Police & Ors[2] where Justice Ventakesh, recognising his own lack of comprehension of the realities of the community, sought psychoeducation and counselling to increase his understanding of same-sex partnerships.

Such an openness in attitude is both precious and rare. It is not often that those in positions of power and judicial authority acknowledge their own shortcomings.

Justice Venkatesh therafter issued a landmark decision in June 2021, giving specific instructions to the police, judiciary, legal aid services, and central ministries to sensitise their employees and personnel in their interactions with LGBTQIA+ people after undergoing counselling and consulting with community members, NGOs, and lawyers.

These are the kind of judges India needs, the ones who are open to learning and educating oneself, while keeping an open mind, not the kind of judges who will compromise on the integrity of the constitution in order to protect their own set of discriminatory values and beliefs.

Other Jurisprudence

1. NALSA v. Union of India[3]

For the nation of India, the 2014 NALSA Judgement represented a turning point. The Supreme Court of India issued a significant ruling in this matter in April 2014. The right of transgender people to self-identify as male, female, or third gender was upheld by the court, who also acknowledged their legal rights.

According to the ruling, transgender individuals should be seen as a socially and economically underprivileged group that is entitled to numerous affirmative government policies from both the state and the federal level.

The ruling confirmed that transgender people are entitled to the fundamental freedoms and rights protected by the Indian Constitution, such as the right to life, equality, and freedom from discrimination. It emphasised the need to treat the transgender population with respect and decency.

The government was ordered by the court to take action to formally recognise transgender people’s gender identities. It acknowledged the value of granting gender identification certificates to make it easier for people to obtain a range of rights, privileges, and benefits.

The NALSA ruling classified transgender people as a socially and economically disadvantaged group, making them eligible for affirmative action initiatives and accommodations in the workplace and in education. It demanded that social welfare programmes and other actions be taken to support the transgender community.

The judgement emphasised the necessity for facilities and services tailored specifically to the needs of transgender people. It recognised that transgender people have the legal right to hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery (SRS) without facing any prejudice.

In addition to stressing the significance of raising knowledge about transgender rights among the general public, elected officials, and law enforcement agencies, the judgement also ordered the government to guarantee transgender people’s access to education and job training. To combat the discrimination and stigma experienced by transgender people, it called for sensitization campaigns. It demanded the abolition of prejudice in educational settings and the development of welcoming environments. The court’s ruling emphasised the necessity of expanding employment possibilities and taking action to combat workplace discrimination.

The NALSA decision marked a significant advancement in the recognition and defence of transgender people’s rights in India. It serves as the basis for later legal, political, and social changes aimed at advancing equality and inclusivity for the transgender population.

2.  Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors[4]

The 2017 ruling by the Supreme Court of India in the K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, generally known as the Aadhaar case, was a significant decision.

The lawsuit largely focused on the right to privacy in relation to the Aadhaar biometric identification system, but it also has implications for other groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community.

The Indian Constitution protects the right to privacy as a basic right, according to this Supreme Court’s ruling.

According to the court, a fundamental component of the right to life and personal freedoms protected by Article 21 of the Constitution is the right to privacy. This decision has a favourable effect on the rights of the LGBTQ+ community by having substantial implications for personal autonomy, freedom, and dignity.

The idea of equal treatment and non-discrimination is reaffirmed by the right to privacy judgement. It acknowledges that people have the freedom to make private decisions free from unwarranted government or social involvement. This idea can be used to shield LGBTQ+ people from stigma, prejudice, and discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The ruling emphasises the value of shielding people from unwarranted state interference in their personal affairs. This protection can cover private decisions, personal connections, and other areas that are important to LGBTQ+ people. It can assist in stopping governmental authorities from meddling in their personal affairs, such as outing people against their will or conducting intrusive monitoring based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The acceptance of the right to privacy promotes a person’s ability to publicly express their sexual orientation or gender identity. It enables LGBTQ+ people to express themselves without worrying about society or government pressure. This could help create a more accepting culture that respects and upholds the right of LGBTQ+ people to self-determination.

The importance of close friendships and family ties is acknowledged by the right to privacy. It can safeguard LGBTQ+ people’s ability to establish relationships, pick partners, and exercise their rights to be married, adopt, or start families without unjustifiable restrictions. This offers a foundation in law for the acceptance and defence of LGBTQ+ families.

Although the K.S. Puttaswamy ruling dramatically increased the rights of the LGBTQ+ community in India, there are still difficulties and battles to be won before there is complete equality and acceptance. The ruling offers a legal basis, but in order to provide complete protection and rights for LGBTQ+ people, societal attitudes, cultural norms, and more legal reforms are required.

3.  Shakti Vahini v. UOI[5]–

In 2018, the Apex Court acknowledged the freedom to select a life mate as a basic right in its decision.

When two adults mutually decide to become partners in life, the SC noted that this is a manifestation of their choice recognised by Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Although the LGBTQ+ community was not specifically mentioned in this ruling, it did describe the ability to choose a partner as a fundamental freedom and used gender neutral terms which can be applied to the LGBTQ+ community

4. Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI[6]

The 2018 ruling expressly reversed the Supreme Court’s prior ruling in the 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation case, which had affirmed Section 377’s constitutionality. In doing so, the Supreme Court upheld legal history actually made by the Delhi High Court in 2009 when a two judge bench that unequivocally held that treating consensual sex between adults as a crime is violative of fundamental rights protected by India’s Constitution. In 2013, ironically a two judge Supreme Court bench re-instated Section377 of the IPC. This, the Koushal decision had harmed the LGBTQ+ community greatly and had continued prejudice, the court admitted.

Overturning the 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation case, the court cited the idea of constitutional morality and said it is the responsibility of the judiciary to uphold individual rights and avoid the tyranny of the majority.

It was argued that in order to uphold constitutional morality, the LGBTQ+ community’s rights must be acknowledged and safeguarded. The verdict emphasised the value of social justice and the necessity of defending the rights of disadvantaged and marginalised people.

The decriminalisation of homosexuality was acknowledged as a step towards guaranteeing social justice for the LGBTQ+ population, which has historically been the target of discrimination, social stigma, and exclusion. In discussing issues of sexual orientation, the court emphasised the value of individuality and personal autonomy. It was decided that the freedom to select a partner who is also of the same sex is an expression of personal autonomy and is protected by the right to privacy.

The court made clear that laws that discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation are not supported by a legitimate classification and cannot, therefore, withstand constitutional scrutiny by highlighting the lack of intelligible differentia in Section 377.

5.  Deepika Singh v. CAT[7]

In this case, in 2022, the Indian Judiciary in its judgement, highlighted the different forms of families can evolve. The traditional definition of a family, which consists of a heterosexual couple and their kids was changed in this judgement to include all sorts of families.

An excerpt from the judgement reads-

“Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships. A household may be a single parent household for any number of reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or divorce. Similarly, the guardians and caretakers (who traditionally occupy the roles of the ‘mother’ and the ‘father’) of children may change with remarriage, adoption, or fostering. These manifestations of love and of families may not be typical but they are as real as their traditional counterparts.

“Such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving not only of protection under law but also of the benefits available under social welfare legislation

“The black letter of the law must not be relied upon to disadvantage families which are different from traditional ones. The same undoubtedly holds true for women who take on the role of motherhood in ways that may not find a place in the popular imagination.”

The Naz Foundation decision, in which the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench declared Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional, first raised the issue of inclusivity by rejecting the conventional socio-legal definition of “family” as defined by a married mother and father. This decision furthers that idea by rejecting the traditional definition of a family.

6.  Arunkumar and Another Versus Inspector General of Registration[8]

It was decided in the case of Arunkumar v. Inspector General of Registration in 2019 that transgender people have the right to marry under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and that the term “bride” under the Hindu Marriage Act includes transgender people who identify as women. The Court upheld Ms. Sreeja’s self-identification as a woman and acknowledged her right to do so, as well as the rights of other intersexes and transgender people who identify as women, to be included in the term of “bride.” It was observed that the State’s refusal to register her marriage constituted a breach of her fundamental rights.

7.  Nangai Versus Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur and Others[9]

In 2014, the Court acknowledged that Indian law does not take into account the gender fluidity of transsexuals. The Court acknowledged that forcing someone to undergo a gender medical examination was against Article 21.

The judgement upheld the individual’s right to self-identify as a particular gender. In addition to noting the continuous emphasis on binary gender identities in Indian and international publications, it rejected medical evidence of gender. Consequently, sex is decided at birth based on physical traits and by society as a whole under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act of 1969 and other laws. It has never been necessary to submit to a medical examination to demonstrate a person is female, thus making the petitioner do so in this instance is unfair.

Additionally, it was decided that failing to treat Nangai as a woman would be a breach of her constitutional rights  (Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(a), 21) to equality, non-discrimination, freedom of speech and expression, life, and personal liberty, which were upheld in NALSA v. Union of India. The Court ultimately decided that Nangai was a woman and qualified for the position of a lady police constable.

Nangai also had the ability to self-identify as a third gender, among other gender identities. The Court overturned the decision to terminate Nangai’s employment and instructed the Superintendent to rehire her as a woman police constable after noting that she had not mislead the Board about her gender and recognised the stress that the forced medical exams had caused her.

8.  Queerythm and Anr. v. National Medical Commission and Ors. [10]

NGOs argued in 2021 that a section of the MBBS textbooks that promoted “Queer phobia” should be removed. They said that these textbooks stigmatise the sexual and gender identities of the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) population as a crime, mental condition, or depravity.

According to the petitioners, the use of this kind of content violates the rights of LGBT people under Articles 14, 17, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The National Medical Commission and the Undergraduate Medical Education Board were directed to act swiftly in order to address the problem of MBBS textbooks using “outdated, inhuman and discriminatory text and unscientific data” referring to the Queer community by the Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly of the Kerala High Court.

9.  Matman Gangabhavani v State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors[11]

This 2019 case pertains to reservations for transgenders. The High court of Andhra Pradesh recalled Supreme Court Directive 3 in NALSA (page 128) which instructed the federal and state governments to treat transgender people as members of socially and educationally underprivileged classes and to grant them “all kinds of reservations” in public employment and school admissions.

The court came to the conclusion that the State was compelled by this directive to establish a distinct category of reserved classes—the transgender category. This reservation category was supposed to be an addition to the others. The court referred to this reservation as “vertical.”

The court characterised the law by saying that it was compelled by the Supreme Court orders and that reservation in public positions was authorised by the constitution. But it has to be vertical in form. The NALSA guidelines were incorrectly implemented in terms of horizontal reservation.

However, failing to give vertical reservations constituted a disobedience of the Supreme Court’s order, for which contempt actions may be appropriate.

10.  Queerala An organization for Malayali LGBTIQ Community v. State of Kerala[12]

In 2020, J. V. Kunhikrishnan ordered Kerala’s government to take stern action against the state’s LGBTQA+ community’s forced conversion treatment. The Court further ordered the government to establish an expert group and develop a directive based on its findings in this regard.

11.  Sushma v. Commissioner of Police, Chennai[13]

This 2021 judgement is an extremely crucial one, as it laid down guidelines for the Police and prison authorities, educational institutes and for Physical and mental health professionals. The efforts Justice Venkatesh has gone through, in order to be able to deliver a fair and just judgment is historic.

The rules that have been established for the field of education include:

1. Educating parents on gender nonconformity and the LGBTQIA+ community will help to guarantee that families are accepting.
2. Ensuring that the restrooms are gender neutral for the transgender pupils.
3. People who identify as transgender should have the ability to modify their name and gender on their academic records.
4. In addition to the male and female gender columns in the application forms for admissions, competitive exams, etc., the term “transgender” should also be included.
5. Appointing counsellors who are more inclusive of all genders, whether in terms of the staff or the students, to ensure that complaints are handled in a more effective way

The guidelines for police and prison authorities recommend that:

1. There should be frequent programmes that concentrate on the procedures that should be taken to protect and also prevent offences against the members of this group.
2. Along with raising knowledge about the crimes and punishments listed under The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, there should also be sufficient sensitization on their legal rights.
3. There should be separate prisons to reduce the likelihood of cis-men sexually assaulting transgender and gender non-conforming inmates. Programmes should be run by various NGOs with community support to highlight the issues that are faced by law enforcement agencies. Proper training should also be provided to ensure effective assistance with these issues.

The guidelines for Physical and mental health professionals include-

1. Along with programming that helped people grasp the concepts of gender, sexuality, and sexual orientation and encouraged acceptance of diversity, there should be mental health camps.
2. It should be strictly forbidden to make any attempts to medically treat or transform the sexual orientation of members of the LGBTQIA+ community into that of a heterosexual.
3. Professionals who participate in this conversion therapy should be sanctioned by taking strong action against them or perhaps having their licence to practise revoked.

Other policy directions that have helped create a just and equitable environment for the community are-

1. In 2020, the Karnataka government issued a directive prohibiting the recruitment of transgender people into the police force. But in July of that same year, the Karnataka government decided to make provisions for the reservations of transgender while hiring state police.[14]

2. The Karnataka government formally agreed in July 2021 and was the first to implement a 1% reservation for the transgender population in positions with the government. Soon after, a new petition was filed asking for the consideration of transgender accommodations in state-owned businesses and statutory organisations.[15]

3. Earlier this year, a petition was submitted to the Delhi High Court asking it to order the State government to build exclusive restrooms for transgender people since not doing so would violate their right to privacy. Additionally, when transgender people use bathrooms intended for males or women, it makes them uncomfortable and leaves them up to harassment.

The Delhi government had stated that the letter “T” will be put to bathrooms built for the disabled so that transgender people may also use them. The Court informed the State, but there had been no update on how this was being put into practise. The persistent stigma associated with transgender people makes access to basic health care facilities difficult for them[16]

4. Rajesh Bindal, the acting chief justice of the Calcutta High Court, appointed transgender person Ankani Biswas to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority as an attorney. First transgender person to hold the job is Biswas.[17]

5. Rejecting claims that Kirpal’s “ardent involvement” in gay rights issues could lead to potential “bias and prejudice,” the apex court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and also including Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, reiterated its November 11, 2021 recommendation for Kirpal to be appointed as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
6. According to the Collegium, Kirpal’s application to become a judge of the high court has been pending for more than five years and has to be reviewed quickly. If Saurabh Kirpal is appointed as a judge, he will be the country’s first openly gay judge.[18]

There have been multiple remarks made by CJI DY Chandrachud in the petition to legalize same-sex marriages, which the Supreme Court is currently hearing –

“There is no absolute concept of a man or an absolute concept of a woman at all. It’s not the question of what your genitals are. It’s far more complex. So even when Special Marriage Act says man and woman, the very notion of a man and a woman is not an absolute based on genitals”

These judgements, remarks and orders not only show hope for a better future of India and the LGBTQ+ community but also reflect the change in the mindset of sections of the Indian Judiciary at least since Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013).

With the changing atmosphere, one can be certain that there is hope for an India which recognized and provides all the right available to heterosexual people to the queer community.

[1] Hart, H. L. A., 1961 [2012], The Concept of Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Third edition, 2012

[2] S. Sushma, D/o. Mr. V. Senthil Kumar and Another Versus Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Others [2021] 5 MLJ 9

[3] NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (NALSA) VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2014 SC 1863

[4] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors, (2017) 10 SCC 1

[5] SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA [(2018) 7 SCC 192]

[6] Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. vs. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321

[7] Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1088

[8] Arunkumar and Another Versus Inspector General of Registration, No. 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028 and Others [2019] 4 MLJ 503

[9] Nangai Versus Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur and Others [2014] 4 MLJ 12

[10] Queerythm and Anr. v. National Medical Commission and Ors. W.P.(C) No.18210 of 2021

[11] Matman Gangabhavani v State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors WP No 16770 of 2019 (AP High Court)

[12] Queerala An organization for Malayali LGBTIQ Comunnity v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 21202 of 2020

[13] S. Sushma, D/o. Mr. V. Senthil Kumar and Another Versus Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Others [2021] 5 MLJ 9

[14] https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/reservation-for-transgender-persons-state-police-constable-recruitment-state-government-karnataka-hc

[15] https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/karnataka-becomes-first-in-the-country-to-provide-1-reservation-for-transgender-persons-in-public-employment

[16] https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-govt-response-progress-regarding-separate-toilets-transgender-persons

[17] https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/transgender-lawyer-ankani-biswas-panel-lawyer-west-bengal-state-legal-services-authority

[18] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/saurabh-kirpal-may-become-first-gay-judge-of-constitutional-court-if-centre-accepts-collegiums-recommendation/articleshow/97175651.cms?from=mdr

Related:

Manoeuvring Law and Legality for Same-Sex Marriage

Kerala’s Islamic Groups Face Accusations of Discrimination Against LGBTQIA+ Community

India’s LGBTQIA+ struggle: beyond legal victories, battle for true equality remains

The post Courts take forward steps for India’s LGBTQIA+ community appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Despite the landmark ruling by the Indian Supreme Court on September 6, 2018, which decriminalised gay sex and sparked hope for progress in civil rights, the journey towards true LGBTQIA+ inclusivity in India remains challenging. While the legal battle to decriminalise homosexuality has been won, it is crucial to recognise that the struggle for LGBTQIA+ individuals in India extends far beyond legal victories. Being openly queer in the country still exposes them to safety concerns and discriminatory struggles, hindering their pursuit of equality, dignity, and acceptance.

Where others are asking for a reading down or decriminalisation of Section 377, Keshav Suri, activist, and businessman, has a more long-term vision. “Decriminalisation is just the first step. I want to build an environment where people from all genders and sexualities are treated with equal dignity and have equal rights,” Keshav Suri, in an interview to CJP. This is in line with what many in civil society argue for.

Prejudice has been lethal for LGBTQIA+ individuals.

Individuals like Tish, India’s first open drag queen, reveal the stark reality that being openly LGBTQIA+ in the country is still fraught with difficulties. Speaking to the BBC, Tish ruefully speaks, “India should create a space where I’d actually be able to make my family understand that it’s normal.’ However queer people are susceptible to violence from the police, their own natal families, as well as goons and general public itself.

For instance, despite the affirmation of LGBTQIA+ rights by India’s Supreme Court, community members and activists point out that the police often offer misguided advice to queer individuals, urging them to return to their abusive households instead of assisting in escaping such environments.

A study from 2016 by the National Institute of Epidemiology revealed that transgender persons experience significant violence, with the police and other law enforcement agencies identified as the primary perpetrators.

A significant underlying issue, according to LGBTQIA+ activist Shiva Kumar based in Chennai, is the lack of fundamental understanding among the police regarding sex, gender, sexuality, and identity. Kumar emphasises that while law enforcement should focus on upholding the law, they often approach LGBTQIA+ cases as personal matters, influenced by their biases and societal norms. Kumar stresses the need for police awareness and the importance of confining their work to law enforcement.

This situation arises because men living with their families find it more challenging to seek support from fellow homosexuals. On the other hand, the study found that those living with long or short-term partners or peers experienced significantly less violence. The criminalisation of homosexuality has made it more difficult for gay men to seek medical assistance for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Restrictive legal environments and pervasive social stigma act as barriers, limiting their access to appropriate services for STIs and HIV, including prevention and treatment, and posing potential life-threatening consequences.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has provided recommendations to the government regarding the sensitisation of law enforcement agencies.

It recommended to the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment that the stigma surrounding LGBTQI+ communities can be reduced by raising awareness and popularising the NALSA 2014 and Navtej Singh Johar 2018 judgments. These judgments recognised transgender individuals as the third gender and decriminalised consensual gay sex, respectively.

The NHRC’s Core Group also emphasised the importance of sensitising law enforcement agencies towards the LGBTQIA+ community. They proposed organising advocacy and sensitisation programs at both the central and state levels, including ministries and human rights commissions, to enhance understanding of the issues faced by this community. Unfortunately, most states have not taken any action to implement these recommendations.

To address this gap in training, civil society organisations (NGOs) have taken the initiative to reach out to police departments across various states and cities in India, offering to provide training and sensitise personnel on matters concerning the LGBTQIA+ community. In one instance, in July 2020, the policemen at Narayanpur police station, part of the Bidhannagar city police, were accused of harassing a gay man based on his gender identity.

A recent survey conducted by the Swasti Health Resource Centre across five Indian states focused on 12 community organisations to gain a better understanding of the profiles and needs of individuals seeking their help within the LGBTQIA+ community. The survey revealed that gay men who sought peer support were found to be in safer situations compared to those living with their parents, often without disclosing their sexual orientation. More than half of the men who experienced physical violence (52.4%), sexual abuse (55%), and emotional torture (46.5%) were still living with their parents and remained mostly closeted. Surprisingly, the study discovered that the perpetrators of violence were often strangers, clients (in the case of male sex workers), and troublemakers.

However, most states have not taken action to implement the NHRC’s recommendations to the government regarding the sensitisation of law enforcement agencies. To bridge this gap, NGOs have stepped in to provide training and sensitisation to police departments across various states and cities in India. In a specific incident, the Narayanpur police station in Bidhannagar City faced accusations of harassing a gay man based on his gender identity.

A recent survey conducted by the Swasti Health Resource Centre focused on 12 community organisations across five Indian states. The study aimed to understand the profiles and needs of individuals seeking help within the LGBTQIA+ community. The findings indicated that gay men who sought peer support were in safer situations compared to those living with their parents, often concealing their sexual orientation. Surprisingly, the survey revealed that over half of the men experiencing physical violence, sexual abuse, and emotional torture were still living with their parents and remained mostly closeted. The study also highlighted that perpetrators of violence were often strangers, clients (male sex workers), or troublemakers.

This discrepancy arises because men living with their families face difficulties in seeking support from fellow homosexuals. In contrast, individuals living with long or short-term partners or peers encountered less violence. The criminalisation of homosexuality has made it more challenging for gay men to access medical assistance for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Restrictive legal contexts and social stigma create barriers, limiting their access to appropriate services for STIs and HIV, thereby potentially posing life-threatening risks.

As reported by LiveMint, rural regions in India have developed their own methods of addressing LGBTQ individuals. In certain areas, clandestine honour killings are orchestrated, leaving young gay men with no option but to flee to cities often without financial resources or social support.

However, the winds of change are arriving. The global impact of sensitisation through NGOs, media, as well as by activists has been a catalyst in bringing about change in social norms and perceptions about LGBTQIA+ individuals.

In her 2019 article “Decriminalising homosexuality in India,” published by the American Psychological Association, Rebecca Clay highlights the shifting attitudes towards homosexuality, exemplified by the transformation of psychologist Lata Hemchand from Bangalore.

Previously, Hemchand was involved in offering conversion therapy, a practice aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation. She recalls that her homosexual patients would approach her with fear, worried about the potential loss of their families and social standing. They would express their desire to escape from their sexual orientation. As part of her therapy, Hemchand would expose her clients to sexually explicit pictures featuring individuals of the same gender and administer mild electric shocks to their wrists. The goal was to create an aversion towards their own gender over time.

However, Hemchand underwent a significant change after studying sexuality and culture at a university in Amsterdam in 2000. This experience led her to become one of India’s most supportive therapists for the LGBTQ community. This example reflects that times are changing.

It is also a microcosmic look at the kind of shifts and progress that should happen in society. Activists and LGBTQ groups have long rallied for an increased attention to efforts to sensitise people. The evidences point towards the fact that sensitisation may be what prevents another LGBTQIA+ life from facing violence and death.

“The first hurdle was section 377, now that it is gone. In my belief, our approach henceforth shouldn’t be linear. We need to go in all directions and make strides in all fields. We need equality in its true spirit, not in mere words or social media posts. We need to include the Queer person in every issue affecting the country and vice versa. We have a long way to go,” writes LGBTQ activist Harish Iyar for CJP.

While it is apparent that the civil society has been up in arms trying mitigate the public safety and sensitisation concerns for queer people in India, it seems like the government has to step up as well and take the mantle of ensuring that the rights gender and sexual minorities in India are protected. For a robust democracy, safety of the rights of gender and sexual minorities should be of utmost concern. The judiciary has initiated this process, it is up to the government to execute reforms and progress in Indian society.

Related

Homophobia is Anti-National: Keshav Suri

Understanding Sex, Gender and Sexuality

Supreme Court sets the Rainbow Free!

Judgments and Orders that Empowered Citizens in 2018

The post Long way to go before promises are kept to India’s LGBTQIA+ communities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the Pew Research Centre survey, 53% of adult Indians are in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage. According to the survey’s graph, a considerable 28% of respondents “strongly supported” legalizing same-sex weddings, while 25% “supported it somewhat,” bringing the overall number of people in favour of legalizing same-sex marriages in the country to 53%.  On the other hand, 13% of Indian respondents indicated they were “somewhat opposed” and 31% said they were “strongly opposed” to legalizing same-sex marriage or enacting any policy to that effect, bringing the overall unfavourable reaction to almost 43%. Approximately 4% of respondents did not respond to the question.

Given that a significant and a majority section of Indians support making same-sex marriages legal, the survey results for India may be a boost for same-sex couples who recently argued for equal marital rights in the Supreme Court of India. The case was heard by a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the CJI D. Y. Chandrachud, in the month of April, and the judgment in the case had been reserved.  Notably, the Union government had vehemently argued in opposition to providing marital rights to any couple other than the heterosexual couples, claiming that doing so violates Indian culture and the heteronormative framework that governs sexual relations. It is further essential to note, homosexuality has been decriminalized in India since 2018, and yet marriage between two consenting homosexual adults has not been legally recognised.

The study results for India further challenges the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) claim that “more than 99.9% of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage.” The BCI, an agency in line with the government’s view, had overstepped its ambit while appealing to the top court to desist from hearing the pleas seeking legalisation of same-sex marriage, terming it “highly inappropriate”. It had rather said the issue of marriage equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples is left to the legislative process. The BCI had stated that the data it released were based on its own survey, however, it never released a survey report that details the methodology, sample size, and other data points. The said resolution of the BCI, departed from its responsibility to promote law reform by opposing a judicial review of marriage laws, was criticized by many groups and individuals.

How queer friendly are other countries?

• According to the survey findings, in terms of global areas, people in Western Europe rose as firm supporters of same-sex marriage, with at least eight in ten respondents supporting it in Sweden (92%), the Netherlands (89%), Spain (87%), France (82%), and Germany (80%). Notably, same-sex weddings are permitted in each of these countries. In Poland and Hungary, however, only 41% of adults favoured the same-sex marriages.
• In North America, approximately eight out of 10 Canadians (79%) support same-sex marriage, as do 63% of Americans and 63% of Mexicans. Essentially, legal marital rights have been extended to the same sex couples in all these three nations.
• In South America, marriage between homosexual couples are supported by 67% of Argentinians and 52% of Brazilians. Both countries have legalized same-sex marriage.
• Over three-quarters of respondents in Australia (75%) and Japan (74%), respectively, support legal same-sex marriage in Asia-Pacific. While same-sex marriage is permitted in Australia, it is not permitted in Japan.
• Same-sex marriage is illegal in South Korea, and the issue is making headlines. In South Korea, 40% support legal same-sex marriage, while 59% oppose it. Same-sex marriage is strongly condemned by Indonesians. Only 5% of Indonesians favour same-sex marriage.
• The acceptance of same-sex marriage is the lowest in Nigeria, which a mere 2% of their population backing it.

Factors affecting views on same-sex marriage:

The said survey examined and recorded sentiments regarding a range of demographic variables, including age, gender, political ideology, and whether respondents believe religion to be essential in their life.

Age: The research also discovered that in 12 of the countries that were surveyed, those under 40 are more inclined than senior people to accept homosexual marriage.

Gender: In 14 of the surveyed countries, women were more likely than men to say they support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.

Religion: In general, countries where a higher percentage of respondents said religion was important to them, showed lower acceptance of legalising same-sex marriage. Similarly, people who are not affiliated with a religion are much more likely to say they support same-sex marriage.

Political ideology: Views on same-sex marriage are related to political ideology in 16 of the 18 countries. In these countries, those on the ideological left are significantly more likely than those on the right to favour allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.

Related:

Same-sex marriage an assertion of love, marriage & inclusivity

Equal marriage rights: A deep dive into the resistance, showcasing those resisting non-discrimination

Queer and Proud: The last legal challenge to a law that criminalises homosexuality

Right to Same Sex Marriages is not a right that can be claimed: Union to SC

The post Pew Research Centre: 53% of Adults in India Support Legalisation of Same-Sex Marriages appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Blaming the evil west, opening sessions of the seven day ‘international convention to bring in Hindu Rashtra”, Pingale a ‘Guru” for this extremist outfit also said, “Now, the western world wants this perversion to be accepted in India. Where there is no dharma or ethics, asuras (demons) will emerge,” he told hundreds of representatives from 310 Hindu organisations from 22 states and abroad. Pingale added that it was live-in relationships also were harming dharma. “If such relationships get legal acceptance, many families’ and daughters’ lives will be destroyed. We are moving towards destruction. If we engage in adharma, we will have to bear the consequences,” he said.

Bemoaning the destruction caused by Cyclone Biparjoy, Pingale said over the past 11 years they had been predicting at the annual Hindu convention that “adharma will see a rise in bio-wars and natural disasters like cyclones”. Pingale also said the Khalistan movement is yet another challenge to Hindu unity. He said that the average Sikh does not support Khalistan but is being provoked by Pakistan’s ISI and by groups of Christian missionaries.

“Some are asking what is wrong with the demand for Khalistan when you are seeking Hindu Rashtra,” Pingale said. “But Khalistan is about dividing the nation and violence. We need to fight this propaganda of comparing Khalistan with the Hindu Rashtra movement.”

Electoral Loss in Karnataka

Pingale also said that BJP lost the recent assembly polls in Karnataka because Hindus were left confused without the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act. “We have to create such a situation that parties’ manifestos promise the establishment of Hindu Rashtra,” Pingale said. “In Parliament too, Hindu Rashtra is being discussed by MPs. The seed has been sown and we want to see a flourishing tree.”

Sanatan Sanstha founder Jayant Athavale said in a message, which was read out, that Hindu Rashtra will definitely be established by 2025. 2023 is 100 years of the formation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

“The time for establishment of Hindu Rashtra is nearing. Even Sri Ram had to go to war for peace. So, no one should be under the impression that Hindu Rashtra will be established by itself. It is definite that we will have to fight for it. For this, we will have to start preparation from today,” Athavale said. Jayant Athavale and his outfit have been accused of unethically performing hypnosis on unwilling participants, even women.

Both HJS and SS have been and are being investigated by authorities in Karnataka and Maharashtra for the assassinations of four rationalists, Narendra Dabolkar (2013), Govind Pansare (2015), MM Kalburgi (2015) and Gauri Lankesh (2017)

Related:

Now, a Goa outfit wants film on ‘Portuguese horror’

Savarkar’s grandson calls for trade boycott of Muslims: HJS, GOA

The post Its live-in and gay ties whip up cyclones like Biparjoy: HJS, Goa appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Order was passed by a division bench consisting of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran was of the view that the impugned order was only an ad interim interlocutory order, that was intended to ‘preserve the subject matter of the list’.

The original applicant, a trans-woman, wanted to apply for the post of House Keeper (Female) in the Homeopathic Medical College. She was aggrieved that both the selection notification as well as the rules of recruitment had prescribed that appointment to the said post would be confined only to women candidates. It was submitted by the applicant that the PSC had devised a software accepting applications only from women candidates. The original applicant claimed that since she could legally claim only to be a trans-woman, her online application was not accepted by the software system of the PSC.

The applicant further contended by the applicant before the Tribunal that by virtue of Section 3(b) of the Transgender Persons Act, 2019 (hereinafter, ‘TGP Act, 2019’), it has been stipulated that there shall not be any unfair treatment in or in relation to, employment or occupation.

At the point when the applicant approached the Tribunal in this regard, it passed an interim order directing the PSC that the applicant may submit her application in physical form, which would thereafter be accepted by the PSC for the time being.

It is on in appeal, being aggrieved by the said interim order that the PSC filed the present petition before the High Court.

The PSC, represented by Standing Counsel for the PSC P.C. Sasidharan contended that differentiation on basis of gender was made since one of the prime duties to be discharged by the incumbent in the post was to take care of the safety and other needs of the women who stay in women’s hostel. It was also submitted that the incumbent would also have to be prepared for night stay in the women’s hostel concerned, and that there would be serious safety issues if the concerned incumbent is not a woman.

The counsel for PSC further added that in a case of this nature, the Tribunal ought to have given reasonable opportunity to the PSC to file their written response, and heard both sides and assessed the prima facie nature of the case and the balance of convenience.

“Annexure-A2 selection notification was issued on 31.12.2022 and the last date for submission of application was on 01.02.2023 since the online application was not accepted on account of the software restrictions, the applicant has approached the Tribunal on 23.01.2023 and the ad interim order as per Ext.P2 has been rendered on 24.01.2023 which appears to be before the prescribed last date for submission of the application, namely 01.02.2023. Therefore essentially, the said ad interim order has been issued only to preserve the subject matter of the lis so as to keep the litigating claims of the petitioner in the above lis alive,” the Court observed.

However, the Court conceded that in a case of the present nature, the petitioner also ought to have been given an opportunity to present their case to defend at the interlocutory stage, so that the Tribunal could pass a reasoned order, it did not find it necessary to interfere with the present interim order.

Thereafter Court directed the Tribunal to facilitate early hearing and dispose of the main matter within 3 months. Senior Government Pleader Unnikrishna Kaimal, and Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Thulasi K. Raj, and Aparna Narayan Menon appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v. Aneera C. & Ors.

Related

Transgender Woman is a “Bride” under Hindu Marriage Act: 2019 Judgement, Madras HC

9 years since the passing of the NALSA judgment, has the cycle of discrimination and ostracism finally been broken for the transgender community?

No proposal for affirmative action in education or employment for transgenders: Govt

Delhi HC Approached for Separate Public Job Vacancies for Transgender Persons

The post Kerala High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Order Directing PSC To Provisionally Accept Trans-Woman’s Application For Post Confined To Women Candidates appeared first on SabrangIndia.