Latest news with #UnionofIndia
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Delhi court allows extradition of man to stand rape trial in Scotland
A Delhi Court has allowed the extradition of a fugitive to stand trial in Scotland for sexual assault, rape and communicating Chief Judicial Magistrate Pranav Joshi was hearing the matter over the Centre's December 2024 order appointing and requesting the court to inquire into the extradition request by determining whether a prima facie case was made out against the fugitive criminal (FC) Naijil an order dated June 9, the court said, "Union of India is requested to extradite the FC Naijil Paul to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for standing trial of the indictment charges against the FC before the High Court of Judiciary at Glasgow, Scotland through diplomatic channel." Till formalities of extradition were complete, Paul would remain in Tihar prison, it avoid criminal prosecution in the UK, Paul fled to India but was arrested from Kochi in Kerala and brought to the national to the Centre's order, the United Kingdom government submitted a request for Paul's extradition, who was "wanted to stand trial in connection with the offences allegedly committed in Scotland" for sexual assault, communicating indecently among other conduct under Indian laws amount to offence under Section 63 (rape), Section 74 (sexual assault), Section 75 (sexual harassment), Section 79 (word, gesture to act to outrage the modesty of a woman) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita which are punishable with more than one year imprisonment," it said.
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
Court permits U.K. fugitive's extradition to face sexual assault charges
DELHI A Delhi court recently permitted the extradition of Naijil Paul, a British national of Indian origin, to the United Kingdom to face trial for multiple sexual offences. Wanted by authorities in Scotland for rape, sexual assault, and indecent communication involving three women, Mr. Paul came to India after charges were framed against him. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Pranav Joshi allowed the extradition of the accused while hearing the Centre's December 2024 order requesting the court to inquire into the extradition request made by the UK government by determining whether a prima facie case was made out against the accused. 'Union of India is requested to extradite the FC, Naijil Paul, to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to stand trial for indictment charges against the FC before the High Court of Judiciary at Glasgow, Scotland, through diplomatic channels.' The court said that the accused would remain in Tihar prison till extradition formalities were completed.
New Indian Express
15 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Court gives nod for fugitive criminal's extradition to UK to face trial in sexual offence case
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has permitted the extradition of Naijil Paul, a British citizen of Indian origin, to the United Kingdom to face trial for multiple sexual offences. Paul is wanted by authorities in Scotland for charges including rape, sexual assault, and indecent communication involving three women. The order, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Pranav Joshi on June 9, followed a formal request made by the UK government. Paul had earlier consented to his extradition, leading the court to drop the cross-examination of witnesses in the matter. Paul, a fugitive criminal, had fled to India after the charges were framed against him. He was arrested in Kochi, Kerala, and later transferred to Delhi, where he has been in judicial custody. The Ministry of External Affairs had received the extradition request from the UK, following which proceedings were initiated on December 24, 2024. 'It is requested that the Union of India extradite the fugitive criminal Naijil Paul to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to stand trial on charges before the High Court of Judiciary at Glasgow, Scotland, through diplomatic channels,' the order stated. The court directed that Paul remain lodged in judicial custody at the Tihar Jail complex until all extradition formalities are completed. Additionally, the Jail Superintendent has been instructed to produce him before the court via video conferencing every seven days until his transfer. According to case records, Paul is accused of committing the alleged offences between January and August 2018, while working at a care home in Hamilton, Scotland. He appeared before the local sheriff court in August 2018 and again in January 2019, during which charges were officially framed. However, he failed to appear for a hearing before the High Court of Judiciary on December 4, 2019 — a day after fleeing to India. A warrant was issued for his arrest shortly thereafter. Special Public Prosecutor N K Matta appeared on behalf of the Central Government, while advocates Atul Maliyan and Bibin John represented Paul during the extradition proceedings. Paul will now be handed over to UK authorities.
Time of India
3 days ago
- General
- Time of India
How court stood by queer couple's rights as a ‘chosen' family
In a quiet room of the Madras High Court , a young woman's freedom was restored. More than that, something beautiful unfolded. The court recognised that family, in its deepest and truest sense, is not always something we are born into. Sometimes, it is something we choose. And sometimes, it chooses us. This was the case of a young lesbian woman who was confined by her biological family. Her partner, brave and undeterred, approached the court seeking her release through a habeas corpus petition. What began as a personal struggle for one couple became a significant moment in India's legal history. The court ruled that under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, the right to form a "chosen family" is protected. The judgment came without fanfare. No front-page headlines, no breathless TV panels. Yet, its quiet compassion may make it one of the most meaningful verdicts for queer communities in India, perhaps for anyone who has ever felt out of place in their own home and longed for a different kind of belonging. What emerged from this case was not merely an order for release but a broader constitutional articulation, one that shifts the prevailing legal understanding of family in India. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What She Did Mid-Air Left Passengers Speechless medalmerit Learn More Undo Traditionally, Indian statutes and jurisprudence have treated family as a legal unit formed through blood ties, marriage, or adoption. The judgment suggests that such a framework, while still operative, is no longer exhaustive. It affirms that emotional interdependence, mutual care, and voluntary association can constitute family, and that such relationships merit protection under the Constitution. The approach is grounded in landmark Supreme Court decisions: Justice K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21, redefining liberty to include decisional autonomy over intimate choices; Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018) decriminalised consensual same-sex relationships, holding that constitutional morality, not social morality, must guide the interpretation of fundamental rights; and Supriyo vs Union of India (2023), while declining to legalise same-sex marriage, unequivocally recognised the dignity of queer relationships and acknowledged their right to cohabit and form households. These decisions established a framework wherein personal autonomy, dignity, and identity are intrinsic to the constitutional promise of liberty. The Madras HC extends this logic: if individuals are constitutionally entitled to love and cohabit with whom they choose, it necessarily follows that such relationships must be seen as familial in nature. Each of these rulings reminds us that freedom is not simply the absence of interference; it is the presence of dignity. A striking element of the judgment is its explicit critique of police inaction. Despite the woman's stated preference to reside with her partner, law enforcement authorities failed to act with urgency. She told the police she wanted to live with her partner. But the police, perhaps fearing backlash from her biological family, did not act. This is not uncommon. For many LGBTQIA+ people in India, the law is not always a shield. The home, far from being a safe place, can become a site of silence, shame, or violence. And when people turn to police or the courts, they are often met with hesitation, suspicion, or indifference. Citing Shakti Vahini vs Union of India (2018), the HC ruling reminds the state that honour, tradition, or family control cannot be excuses to deny someone their freedom. The Constitution's promise of liberty does not stop at the doorstep of one's natal home. The HC reiterated the state's duty to protect people from honour-based coercion, forced confinement, and familial violence. The judgment makes clear that the state cannot abdicate its constitutional obligations on the basis of social discomfort. The court also emphasised that constitutional rights are enforceable within the domestic sphere. When an adult expresses autonomous choice, state institutions must act to safeguard it. For a long time, Indian law has measured family by only a few yardsticks: blood, marriage, or legal adoption. These categories do not always leave room for the love between two friends who raise a child together, or the care between ageing companions who share their final years, or queer couples who are denied legal recognition but live like any other family. The judgment implicitly challenges the formalistic boundaries of Indian family law. Currently, statutes such as the Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Guardians and Wards Act, and employment and pension rules operate on presumptions about what constitutes family. However, the court's recognition of chosen families requires a rethinking of these frameworks. If a queer partner is legally acknowledged as part of one's family for purposes of liberty and cohabitation, ancillary rights such as access to healthcare decisions, housing, pensions, inheritance, and next-of-kin status must logically follow. This creates a necessary tension between constitutional rights and statutory limitations. The Constitution, as interpreted by the higher judiciary, recognises a more inclusive notion of family. The legislature and subordinate rule-making authorities must now respond with corresponding reform. Courts in several jurisdictions have recognised non-traditional family forms: In Canada, jurisprudence has acknowledged "functional families" based on emotional and financial dependency, even in the absence of marriage or consanguinity. The Yogyakarta Principles, developed under international human rights law, urge states to ensure that individuals of all sexual orientations and gender identities can form families of their choosing without discrimination. The Madras HC's judgment implicitly aligns with these global developments. No parade will mark this judgment. No stamp will seal it in textbooks just yet. But it is revolutionary in its own way. It reminds us that families are not just born—they are also made. By extending constitutional shelter to chosen families, the court has not merely resolved a dispute. It has reaffirmed the dignity of the individual, the autonomy of choice, and the capacity of the Constitution to embrace a plurality of lives. (The writer is an advocate at Madras High Court) Email your feedback with name and address to
Indian Express
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Courts accept that family goes beyond marital bonds. It's high time society did so too
When the Supreme Court of India decriminalised consensual same-sex relations in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India in 2018, it did more than just strike down an archaic colonial law. It recognised that queer individuals are entitled to equality, dignity and autonomy under the Constitution. During the proceedings, one of the counsels had emphatically argued, 'How strongly must we love knowing we are unconvicted felons under Section 377?' This unfettered practice of love, in the face of historical discrimination, was highlighted as a key argument for repealing Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Going beyond the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships, the judgment said: 'The right to love and to find a partner, to find fulfilment in a same-sex relationship is essential to a society which believes in freedom under the constitutional order based on rights.' Since Navtej, India's courts have seen a growing number of habeas corpus petitions involving queer individuals seeking protection from harassment, violence, or unlawful confinement by their natal families. The first such case was decided in 2018 in Sreeja S v. The Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, where the Kerala High Court upheld the right of a lesbian woman to live with her partner without fear of reprisals from her family. While granting protection to such couples, courts have held that if the two parties are consenting adults, they have the right to stay with a person of their choice, irrespective of their gender identity or sexual orientation. These cases, often involving young couples fleeing social ostracisation or forced separation, reveal a simple truth: Decriminalisation is not enough. Without legal recognition of queer relationships, queer people remain vulnerable. Last month, the Madras High Court held that 'marriage is not the sole mode to found a family,' reflecting a reality long lived by queer communities which is often overlooked by the law. The Court's observation came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by a 25-year-old woman from Tirupathur, who sought the release of her partner from unlawful detention by the partner's family. Rooted in a growing body of queer jurisprudence, the Court recognised the couple's right to form a family beyond the traditional, and arguably limiting, framework of marriage and heterosexual norms. This judgment is significant because it broadens the legal understanding of queer families, making clear that the right to family life is not limited to marriage, nor confined to heteronormative relationships. Grounded in the Supreme Court's consistent affirmation that consenting adults have the fundamental right to choose their partners, regardless of caste, as held in Lata Singh v. Union of India (2006); religion, as in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M (2018); or gender and sexuality, as in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018). Crucially, in Navtej, the Court clarified that the rights of queer persons encompass a broader, affirmative recognition of their right to love, dignity, and self-determination. This reasoning was further extended in Supriyo v. Union of India (2023). In this case, although the Supreme Court stopped short of legalising same-sex marriage, it unequivocally acknowledged the 'right to form intimate associations' as a core aspect of constitutional liberty. Central to its reasoning was also the decision in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022), which expanded the legal understanding of 'family' beyond biological or marital ties, noting that the law must adapt to reflect lived realities, thereby making space for families of choice. The Court also relied on Devu G Nair v. State of Kerala (2023), wherein the Supreme Court had laid out comprehensive guidelines for how courts and authorities should handle cases involving queer couples. As part of the directions, the SC had urged lower courts to act swiftly, avoid bias, ensure police protection where needed, and strictly prohibit attempts to alter a person's sexual orientation or gender identity through 'conversion therapy' practices. In a legal and social landscape still largely preoccupied with marriage as the benchmark of legitimacy, judgments such as these mark a radical and necessary shift. It transforms constitutional guarantees into concrete protections, especially for those abandoned by family, society, or the state. In doing so, they reinforce that queer individuals are full rights-bearing citizens, entitled not only to protection from harm but also to affirmation, autonomy, and a sense of belonging. Looking ahead, the challenge is not merely to defend these hard-won judicial victories, but to build upon them and ensure that the law does more than shield queer lives. The writer is a socio-legal scholar working on gender and sexuality rights
