Centre must consider according LGBT people special status: Madras HC

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.

By: PTI | Chennai | Published: February 1, 2016 10:10 pm
LGBT, LGBT people, LGBT community, Madra high court, Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgenders, supreme court, india news The Centre, which was directed to file its response by July last year, is yet to file the affidavit.

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.

Share This Article
Share
Related Article

“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.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. L
    Lovely
    Feb 7, 2016 at 5:21 am
    It is genetic desease
    (0)(0)
    Reply
    1. R
      RAMASWAMY
      Feb 2, 2016 at 3:35 am
      Such serious matters regarding the gender differences should be thoroughly debated through various forums consisting of sociologists, psychologists, medical and legal luminaries, philosophers and learned persons from various fields and finally left to the parliament which is considered to represent the conscience of the entire nation at least theoretically. How can a handful of supreme court judges can decide on these matters ? judges will be capable to look the matters only in the legal point of view. They are not masters in all aspects of life. Once the law is framed, then the judicial department can handle. But framing of the law should be done by the parliament based on the recommendations of the learned experts after all due procedures rather than leaving it to three or four judges. Every individual has an inclination of mind including the judges. For such cases, the different kind of verdicts could be possible with different set of benches. Then, how can such an outcome be adopted universally ? Hence a more rational methodology has to be adopted since the issue is most important having deeper consequence . ----
      (0)(0)
      Reply