Centre must consider according LGBT people special status: HC

Image
Press Trust of India Chennai
Last Updated : Jan 31 2016 | 9:48 PM IST
The Centre must consider according LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgenders) people a special status and recognise them as a separate group for safeguarding their rights, including right of privacy, the Madras High Court has said.
The court order came ahead of the hearing by the Supreme Court in an open court on February 2 a curative petition of gay activists challenging its verdict criminalising homosexuality in the country.
In his recent orders on two matrimonial discord cases involving a gay in one case and lesbian in the other, Justice N Kirubakaran said lack of statutory protection for LGBT people has started affecting the very social institution of marriage.
"When more than 30 countries, including a conservative nation like Ireland, have decriminalised homosexuality and legalised gay marriage by way of referendum, getting 62.07 per cent votes in favour, why not India decriminalise homosex?", he asked.
"Why not the central government amend marriage laws to include the homosexuality as valid ground for divorce, as gays and lesbians cannot exhibit interest on the opposite sex which is required for consummation of marriage".
The Centre, which was directed to file its response by July last year, is yet to file the affidavit.
When sexual orientation exhibited by majority persons was accepted by all, why not the sexual orientation of a section of people be recognised (statutorily), as they have different expression of human sexuality, the judge asked.
"Could LGBT be considered as offenders merely for having exhibited their natural sexual orientation and their sexual acts, which are different," the judge wondered and said he was "shocked" to notice non-consummation of marriages because either of the spouses was either 'gay' or 'lesbian'.
Taking judicial note of wide prevalence of same sex relationships in the country, and the adverse impact it had on families, the judge impleaded the union ministries of law and justice and family welfare as parties to the proceedings.
By a separate order, he also made the law commission of India also a party to the case.
The judge also sought to know whether the Centre had taken any decision on deletion of Section 377 of IPC (unnatural offences) from the statute book, as suggested by the Supreme Court in Sureshkumar Koushal vs NAZ Foundation case, or whether it proposed to amend the section by introducing a provision to clarify that nothing contained in the clause should apply to any sexual activity between two consenting adults in private as per the 2009 Delhi High Court judgement.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jan 31 2016 | 9:48 PM IST

Next Story