IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
S. Sushma & Another Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 7284 of 2021
Decided On : 07-06-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 14, 15, (1), 16, 9, 16(2), 21 - Government of India Act - Section 298, (1), 275, 298, (1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 377 - Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 - Section 2(k) - Civil Rights Act, 1964 - Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 - Rule 10(7)(b) - Lesbian Couple - Threat to Safety and Security - Protection From Threat or Danger to their Safety and Security - Petitioners, a lesbian couple whose relationship was being opposed by their parents who are the 4th and 5th Respondents fled from their respective houses - Petitioners, with support extended by certain NGOs and persons belonging to LGBTQIA+ community managed to secure accommodation and protection, and were in search of employment to financially sustain themselves - Meanwhile, 4th and 5th Respondents individually filed girl-missing-complaints before 6th and 7th Respondent Police and two FIRs came to be registered - Having faced interrogation by police at their residential premises, and apprehending threat to their safety and security, Petitioners approached this Court seeking a direction to police not to cause harassment and protection from any form of threat or danger to their safety and security from the 4th and 5th Respondents – Held, Discussion supra leads this Court to final portion of this judgment namely, framing of guidelines and issue of directions for proper recognition of rights of LGBTQIA+ community and to ensure their safety and security to lead a life chosen by them - This Court expects respective departments/authorities and institutions to implement these guidelines in letter and spirit not for the sake of complying with a judicial fiat but to ensure that this society evolves, and LGBTQIA+ community is not pushed out of mainstream of society - Issue involved in present Writ Petition requires regular monitoring and follow up with various concerned departments to ensure that directions issued by this Court is executed and enforced - In view of same, this Court is inclined to keep this Writ Petition pending and issue continuing mandamus from time to time after hearing parties concerned - Petition pending.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, Directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to inquire with the parents of the Petitioners and instruct them not to interfere with the life of the Petitioners and consequentially, to grant the necessary Police Protection to the Petitioners.
1. This Writ Petition has brought to light an important issue requiring destigmatisation and acceptance in the eyes of the society. This Court has, therefore, consciously refrained from adopting the usual course of disposing cases of this nature that knocks the doors of this institution.
2. The crux of the case is as follows. The Petitioners, a lesbian couple whose relationship was being opposed by their parents who are the 4th and 5th Respondents fled to Chennai from their respective houses in Madurai. The said Petitioners, with the support extended by certain NGOs and persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community managed to secure accommodation and protection, and were in search of employment to financially sustain themselves. Meanwhile, the 4th and 5th Respondents individually filed girl-missing-complaints before the 6th and 7th Respondent Police and two FIRs came to be registered. Having faced interrogation by the police at their residential premises, and apprehending threat to their safety and security, the Petitioners approached this Court seeking a direction to the police not to cause harassment and protection from any form of threat or danger to their safety and security from the 4th and 5th Respondents.
3. This Court, felt that the case required attention in detail and therefore, passed the following Order on 22.03.2021:
6. The case in hand requires to be dealt with more sensitivity and empathy and it is a sample case of how the society even now is grappling to come to terms with same-sex orientation. Considering the sensitiveness of the issue involved, this Court wants to hear the parties in camera.
Post this case on 29.03.2021 at 2:15 p.m. in His Lordship’s Chamber.”
4. On 29.03.2021, the Petitioners, the 4th and 5th Respondents and the 6th and 7th Respondent Police were present in-person before this Court with their representing counsel. The proceedings of the chamber hearing and the Order passed thereof is extracted herein under:
4. The 1st Petitioner, is aged about 22 years and she has completed B.Sc. Mathematics and is presently pursuing M.B.A. in correspondence mode in Madurai Kamaraj University. The 2nd Petitioner, is aged about 20 years and she is pursuing B.A. Tamil through correspondence mode in Madurai Kamaraj University. The Petitioners know each other for the last 2 years and both of them in unison stated that their friendship blossomed into love and they were very clear that both of them will be a partner to each other for life. The Petitioners did not mince any words and there was so much of clarity in what they wanted to convey.
5. The parents of the respective Petitioners, came to know about the relationship between the Petitioners, and it was not to their liking. There was opposition and the pressure started mounting, and hence, the Petitioners left Madurai on 09.02.2021, to Chennai. The Petitioners are presently supported by an NGO namely, International Foundation for Crime Prevention and Victim Care (“PCVC”). The Petitioners are searching for a job in orde
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and Ors
NALSA v. Union of India reported in 2014 (5) SCC 438
Punjab Province v. Daulat Singh reported in AIR 1946 PC 66
Sri Mahadeb Jiew v. Dr. B. B. Sen reported in AIR 1951 Cal 563
State of Bombay vs. Bombay Educational Society reported in AIR 1954 SC 561
Raghubans Saudagar Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1972 P&H 117
James Egan v. The Queen reported in 1995 (2) SCR 513
Victorian puritanism when in Ghaidan vs. Godin Mendoza reported in 2004 UKHL 30
Suresh Kumar Kaushal v. Naz Foundation reported in 2014 (1) SCC 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.