Not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth, who supported same-sex relationships, rues Madras High Court

Our society is still conservative, and not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth (former Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court who openly supported her gay son); however, that should not be a reason for the police to deny security to LGBTQIA+ couples facing threats, the Madras High Court has said.
A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan made the observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by a 25-year-old woman from Tirupattur against the illegal detention of her partner by the latter's parents at their residence in Vellore district.
The judges allowed the detainee, also a major, to go with the petitioner after she confirmed that her parents had confined her at their residence against her will. Justice Swaminathan also gave ₹1,000 from his personal funds for the conveyance expenses of the same-sex couple.
Use of word 'queer'
The Divsion Bench also expressed reservations over the usage of the expression 'queer' to describe persons whose gender identity or sexual orientation was outside societal norms and said, there was nothing strange or odd about such inclinations and therefore, the usage was not appropriate.
'We feel certain discomfort in employing the expression 'queer.' Any standard dictionary defines this word as meaning 'strange or odd.' To a homosexual individual, his/her/their sexual orientation must be perfectly natural and normal... Why then should they be called queer?' the judges wondered.
Censuring the police for having forced the detainee to go with her parents when a complaint was lodged with them, the court held that the government officials, the jurisdictional police in particular, would be duty-bound to respond to complaints of threats or harassment received from members of the LGBTQIA+ community.
'We also restrain the detenu's natal family members from interfering with her personal liberty. We issue a writ of continuing mandamus to the jurisdictional police to afford adequate protection to the detenue as well as the petitioner as and when required,' the judges ordered.
Expressing their inability to convince the parents of the detainee to accept the relationship between their daughter and the habeas corpus petitioner, the Bench said, 'But the law is very clear. All individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity, possess the right to universal enjoyment of human rights.'
'Same-sex couples can form family'
Authoring the verdict, Justice Swaminathan also wrote: 'Same-sex couples can very well form a family. Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family. The concept of 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence. The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family.'
They also referred to efforts taken by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court to improve the conditions of the LGBTQIA+ community and said, the judge had approved a deed of familial association that purported to recognise the civil union entered into between LGBTQIA+ partners.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

4 hours ago

• Time of India

Court order seeking FIR in EDC land fraud matter stayed

Panaji: The high court of Bombay at Goa stayed the order of a North Goa court directing the anti-corruption branch (ACB) of the directorate of vigilance to register a first information report (FIR) in connection with allegations of fraud related to land allotment at EDC, Patto. Initially, the trial court had directed the CBI to register the FIR but later assigned the task to the ACB. S Karpe, additional public prosecutor said that the order passed by the sessions court judge at Panaji in the criminal case did not take into consideration the consent as contemplated under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018. According to the counsel, there was no reason given by the trial court for arriving at the conclusion that the FIR needs to be registered within 24 hours in accordance with the complaint. Subsequently, an application was filed for an extension of time, which was granted by the sessions court on June 19, extending the same by 48 hours. 'Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on July 11, 2025. Notice be issued by all the available modes of service. In the meantime, the effect and operation of the order dated June 9, 2025, shall be stayed till the next date,' Justice Nivedita Mehta observed. Activists had moved the court alleging that govt property was allotted to EDC to house certain offices, but they allegedly leased and sold land without obtaining permission from the govt, causing a loss of Rs 300 crore to the state exchequer. Even if permission was obtained, they ought to have deposited 50% of the amount with the govt or the EDC, which has not been done, the activists had alleged. 'In the present case, the FIR ought to have been registered. There is nothing exceptional in the present case that warrants a delay in the registration of an FIR on the ground of a preliminary inquiry. Even if there were exceptional circumstances in the case, any preliminary inquiry could not have, under any circumstances, exceeded two days,' the sessions court Judge Irshad Agha had stated. 'In the present case, the FIR ought to have been registered and a preliminary inquiry ought to have been carried out by the investigating agency. However, there is enough material to directly register the FIR,' the judge had said.

Hindustan Times

5 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

HC: Husband's consent not needed for passport

A woman does not need her husband's consent and signature to apply for a passport and insisting on the same is an instance of 'male supremacism', the Madras high court has said disposing of a petition filed by a woman who sought directions to authorities to issue her a fresh passport. Chennai, Dec 25 (ANI): A view of Madras High Court, in Chennai on Friday. (ANI Photo) (ANI) Saying that the insistence by the Regional Passport Office (RPO) that the woman get her estranged husband's permission for issuance of a passport was 'shocking', the bench of justice N Anand Venkatesh said it shows the 'mindset of the society in treating woman who are married as if they are chattel belonging to the husband'. The woman, Revathy, moved the court saying that she applied for a passport in April, but her application was not processed and the petitioner was informed that she must obtain the signature of her husband in Form-J and only thereafter, the application will be processed by the Chennai RPO. The petitioner got married in 2023 and there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted in her husband filing a petition before a local court, seeking for the dissolution of the marriage. This petition was pending. The RPO also took the pending dispute into consideration, following which she filed the present petition. In his order, the judge said that in the considered view of this court, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking a passport has to be processed independently. 'It is not necessary for a wife to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before the authority,' the judge said in the June 18 order. 'This insistence made by the 2nd respondent (the RPO) shows the mindset of the society in treating woman who are married as if they are chattel belonging to the husband. It is quite shocking that the passport office is insisting for the permission of the husband and his signature in a particular form in order to process the application submitted by the petitioner for passport,' the court said. The judge said the petitioner after marriage does not lose her individuality and a wife can always apply for a passport without the permission or signature of the husband in any form. 'It is quite shocking that the passport office is insisting for the permission of the husband and his signature in a particular form in order to process the application submitted by the petitioner for passport,' the court said. It noted that it was not possible for the petitioner woman to obtain her husband's signature on the application in view of the strained relationship between them, the judge said, the RPO was insisting the woman 'fulfill an impossibility'. 'The practice of insisting for permission from the husband to apply for passport, does not augur well for a society which is moving towards emancipation. This practice is nothing short of male supremacism,' the court said. The judge directed the RPO to process the application submitted by the petitioner and issue a passport in her name on her satisfying the other requirements. This process shall be completed within four weeks, the judge added.

The Hindu

6 hours ago

• The Hindu

Ambedkar's portrait to find a place in all court halls of Karnataka

A photograph/portrait of the chief architect of the Constitution, B.R. Ambedkar, will be displayed at a prominent and suitable place in all the court halls of the High Court of Karnataka as well as in district judiciary across the State. A notification in this regard was issued by the High Court on June 19. A decision to this effect was taken in the meeting of the full court of the High Court of Karnataka recently after considering representations received from the general public, advocates, forums, and organisations, and the communications issued by the Government of Karnataka from time to time requesting the High Court to display the photograph/portrait of Ambedkar, said the notification.