The diversity of families: Kerala HC does well to back transgender co-parenting
In a reassuring affirmation of dignity and equality, the Kerala High Court has recognised a transgender couple from Kozhikode as the legal 'parents' of their biological child. The transgender man who gave birth in 2023, and his partner, had sought recognition as co-parents without gender-binary labels so that their child's future — especially with regard to identification documents and school admission — is not impeded. While the Court declined to read down the format mentioned in the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, saying that this was a 'rare and exceptional' case, it has directed authorities to issue a birth certificate that reflects the gender-neutral term instead of the conventional 'father' and 'mother'. In its observation, the Court emphasised that in certain instances, 'social justice adjudication' must take precedence over an 'adversarial approach'. In doing so, it broadened the legal imagination around family, gender, and parenthood.
In August 2022, granting maternity leave to a central government employee who had previously availed it for the care of her step-children, a bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and A S Bopanna had observed that 'atypical' families are equally deserving of legal protections and social welfare benefits. 'The black letter of the law must not be relied upon to disadvantage families which are different from traditional ones,' they had held. The apex court's refusal to extend civil union or joint adoption rights to LGBTQIA+ couples and its deferral of substantive rights to legislative reform — despite acknowledging queer love and lived discrimination — however, has come as a setback after years of progressive milestones, such as the 2014 NALSA verdict recognising the rights of transgender persons and the 2018 Navtej Johar ruling that decriminalised same-sex relations. In such circumstances, the Kerala High Court's verdict offers a template for affirming queer parenthood within the existing legal framework — and places the child at the centre of that empathetic recognition. It asserts that constitutional dignity cannot wait for political consensus.
Days after the Kerala HC verdict, the Madras High Court, while ruling on a habeas corpus petition by a woman forcibly estranged from her lesbian partner, upheld her right to 'find a family'. 'The concept of a 'chosen family' is now well-settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence,' the division bench said. In a country grappling with entrenched social prejudices, these affirmations of diversity reflect a welcome judicial sensitivity to the complexities and plurality of lived experience. They validate, with quiet strength, the right to belong — not as a privilege granted conditionally by tradition, but a truth that embraces every identity, even those that challenge convention.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Polling station clips may breach privacy of voters, says EC
The Election Commission of India has revised its rules for accessibility of video footage recorded during polls, saying that such footage cannot be viewed by anyone except a court hearing an election petition as it could breach privacy of voters and raise security concerns. Polling station clips may breach privacy of voters, says EC Sharing the footage — recorded through CCTVS, webcast or videography — would enable easy identification of electors by any group or individual, and would leave them vulnerable to 'pressure, discrimination, and intimidation by anti-social elements', officials familiar with the matter said citing the EC's communication. In a circular dated June 18, the commission directed all states and Union territories that the revised rule will apply to elections notified after May 30, 2025. '[The videos] shall be produced in original before the High Court adjudicating an election petition on its order and shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except the High Court adjudicating the Election Petition,' the commission said in the circular, which also contained previous communications pertaining to the preservation of video. HT has seen a copy of the circular. The changes have come in the backdrop of a demand by the Congress and other opposition parties to release post-5pm CCTV footage from polling booths in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections. In December last year, the government tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV cameras and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. Based on the recommendation of the EC, the Union law ministry amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of papers or documents open to public inspection. The commission has also directed it officials to destroy such video footage after 45 days of declaration of results if the election verdict is not challenged in courts, a separate circular issued on May 30 and cited in the latest circular said. Since election results cannot be challenged beyond 45 days, retaining such footage beyond this period would make it susceptible to misuse for 'spreading misinformation and malicious narratives', an official familiar with the matter said. But in case an election petition is filed within the stipulated time of 45 days, the videos will not be destroyed and made available to the competent court, the official cited above said. Providing videos is akin to providing access to Form 17A (register of voters) — which contains information pertaining to the sequence in which electors enter a polling station, serial number of the elector in the electoral roll — under Rule 49L of the Conduct of Election Rules, the official said. 'Violation of secrecy of voting is a punishable offence under section 128 of RPA, 1951 [maintenance of secrecy of voting] with imprisonment for a term up to three months or fine or both. Thus, ECI is legally bound and committed to protect the privacy of the electors and secrecy of voting,' the official said requesting anonymity. A second official said that safeguarding the interests of its electors is 'of prime concern'. 'For the ECI safeguarding the interests of its electors and maintaining their privacy and secrecy is of prime concern, even if some of the political parties/ interest groups mount pressure on the Commission to abandon the laid down procedures or to ignore the security concerns of the electors. Maintaining privacy and secrecy of the elector is non-negotiable and the ECI has, never in the past, compromised on this essential tenet laid down in the law as well upheld by the Supreme Court,' the second official said, requesting anonymity. The move triggered a sharp reaction from Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, who accused EC of 'deleting evidence' when it was required to 'provide answers'. 'Voter list? Will not give machine-readable format. CCTV footage? Hidden by changing the law. Election photos and videos? Now they will be deleted in 45 days, not 1 year. The one who was supposed to provide answers - is the one deleting the evidence,' Gandhi alleged in a post on X. 'It is clear that the match is fixed. And a fixed election is poison for democracy,' the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha posted in Hindi. Gandhi has been demanding voter lists, poll data and video footage from the election commission, alleging irregularities in Maharashtra assembly elections. While the ECI did not respond to Gandhi's comments, a third official said: '[Opposition's remarks] suit their narrative in making the demand sound quite genuine and in the interest of voters and safeguarding the democratic process in the country, it is in fact aimed at achieving exactly the opposite objective. What is veiled as a very logical demand, is actually entirely contrary to the privacy and security concerns of the voters.' Earlier in the week, a purported video showing two people standing at the EVM in a polling booth during the Visavadar assembly bypoll in Gujarat — held on June 19 — emerged on social media, with EC launching a probe into how the video was leaked.
Time of India
15 hours ago
- Time of India
US Chief Justice John Roberts on transgender healthcare: Upholds state bans while sidestepping Trump's agenda; liberals say trans kids left unprotected
US cheif justice John R US chief justice John Roberts has delivered a ruling on transgender healthcare that upholds restrictions but avoids hardline stances, aiming to strike a balance in one of the Supreme Court's most sensitive decisions. Ruling affirms bans, avoids deeper legal precedent In a 24-page opinion issued Wednesday, Roberts upheld Tennessee's law that restricts gender-affirming care like puberty blockers and hormone therapy for those under 18. While affirming the state's authority, Roberts carefully avoided endorsing broader conservative arguments that could have made transgender individuals more vulnerable in other legal contexts. "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," Roberts wrote. "We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process." The chief justice said the law classified treatment based on age and medical use, not sex. That explanation avoided the need for a strict constitutional review. Conservative justices push further Some conservatives on the bench pushed for a broader ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas accused medical professionals of compromising their judgment to advance political goals. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her own opinion joined by Thomas, argued transgender people should not be viewed as a protected class deserving heightened legal scrutiny. She also raised concerns about trans participation in sports. Justice Samuel Alito joined in criticising the court's 2020 Bostock decision, which extended workplace protections to gay and trans employees. However, Roberts declined to extend or roll back Bostock in this case. Liberal dissent laments abandonment of trans youth Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the liberal dissenters, strongly objected to the court's refusal to apply stricter legal review. "By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims," she wrote. She argued that transgender Americans face discrimination in healthcare, housing, and employment, and that the court's inaction left them "doubly vulnerable to state-sanctioned discrimination." Trump policies loom over ruling Since returning to office in January, US President Donald Trump has signed multiple executive orders affecting trans Americans, including the expulsion of trans military personnel. Justice Sotomayor highlighted these actions in her dissent, warning that the current federal agenda was amplifying discrimination. Roberts' ruling did not talk directly about these bigger political issues but repeated his earlier calls for judges to stay cautious and limited in their role. During oral arguments in December, he said, "My understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor." Legal and political consequences While the decision supports states like Tennessee for now, civil rights groups say the limited reasoning means it could still be challenged in the future."It's a devastating loss for trans youth and their families," said Cecillia Wang of the ACLU. "But the opinion is cabined both on the record and on doctrine. We live to fight another day."
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
No fetters: On Thug Life, extra-judicial bans
In ensuring the screening of the film Thug Life — thespian Kamal Haasan plays the lead role — in Karnataka, the Supreme Court of India has unequivocally asserted a fundamental free speech principle that certified films cannot be stifled by protests or a recourse to 'hurt sentiments'. Following Mr. Haasan's comment in a pre-launch event, that Kannada was born from Tamil (it is factually inaccurate as both languages have been known to share a proto-Dravidian ancestor), the film has faced an extra-judicial ban in Karnataka; the Karnataka High Court had suggested that he apologise. The Supreme Court's directions however repudiate this 'moral' position taken by the High Court, bringing into focus the judiciary's role as a guardian of due process. After the film was certified by the CBFC, there should be no fetters on its release, and, therefore, the extra-judicial ban violated the rule of law. The film certification framework, governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and its rules, is designed to safeguard creativity, while maintaining a balance between constitutionally mandated free speech and reasonable restrictions. The CBFC, equipped to vet films with these legal standards, is solely tasked with doing so. Amorphous groups claiming 'hurt sentiments' to intimidate a film's release have no role in this. Giving in to such claims risks violating free speech rights and hurting the livelihoods of actors, artists, technicians and workers. The top court rightly characterised extra-judicial bans as a direct infringement on film-makers' constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression. By emphatically rejecting the extra-judicial ban, the Court has reiterated its positions that maintaining law and order in the face of divergent views is the state's responsibility. It is vital to understand that certified and regulated freedom of speech, as assessed by the CBFC, is distinct from hate speech, which finds no constitutional protection and can be legally restricted. This crucial distinction underscores that legitimate artistic expression, once cleared by the designated authority, deserves state protection. Moving forward, the Court's directions should pave the way for the state to provide institutional safeguards against unofficial bans overriding the CBFC's certification and release. These could include holding theatre owners accountable for unwarranted cancellations of scheduled releases, policing guidelines that distinguish lawful dissent from illegal intimidation and also allowing for citizens to watch a certified film without fear.
