Facts of the Case

The case arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking the release of her partner, a lesbian woman who was allegedly being held against her will by her family. The detenu’s father had reportedly detained her at home to “rehabilitate” her sexual orientation. The petitioner alleged that the detenu was forcibly taken away, physically assaulted, and subjected to rituals aimed at making her “normal.” Despite multiple pleas and SOS messages sent by the petitioner, the local police authorities failed to take any effective action or provide protection. During court proceedings, it became evident that the detenu wished to remain with the petitioner, and not with her natal family, who opposed her relationship due to their conservative views.

Contention of the Petitioner

The petitioner’s contention was that the detenu’s detention by her family was unlawful and a violation of her fundamental rights, particularly her right to personal liberty and freedom of choice. The petitioner argued that although same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized by the Supreme Court, couples such as themselves could still form a legitimate family unit. She invoked the principle of “chosen family,” widely recognized in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence, asserting that marriage is not the sole means to constitute a family. The petitioner further highlighted the police’s gross negligence and insensitivity, emphasizing that their failure to respond appropriately had endangered the detenu’s safety and liberty.

Contention of the Respondent (Detenu’s Family)

The detenu’s family, particularly her mother, contended that the petitioner had “led her daughter astray.” The mother accused the detenu of drug addiction and insisted that she needed counseling and rehabilitation. This reflected a deeply conservative and traditional mindset, where heterosexual marriage and conventional social norms were seen as the ideal and expected life path. The mother’s position was driven by an understandable but misplaced desire to “correct” the daughter’s sexual orientation, hoping she would conform to societal expectations of marriage and family life. The family’s actions amounted to forcibly curbing the detenu’s personal freedom in an attempt to enforce conformity.

Court’s Observations

The Madras High Court, in a progressive and empathetic stance, observed that the concept of “family” must be understood expansively. Quoting from the Supreme Court judgment in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India (2023), the court stressed that although same-sex marriage had not been legalized, such couples could indeed constitute a family. The court noted, “Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family. The concept of ‘chosen family’ is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.” This recognition affirmed the legitimacy of diverse family structures beyond heteronormative marriage.

The bench also took issue with the prevalent usage of the term “queer” to describe homosexual persons, pointing out its negative connotations. The court expressed discomfort with the word, stating, “Any standard dictionary defines this word as meaning ‘strange or odd’. Queering one’s pitch means spoiling the show. To a homosexual individual, his/her/their sexual orientation must be perfectly natural and normal. There is nothing strange or odd about such inclinations. Why then should they be called as queer?” This reflected a conscious effort by the judiciary to move away from language that perpetuates stigma.

The court further censured the police for their failure to protect the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community. It highlighted that the police’s inaction and insensitivity violated the Yogyakarta Principles, which affirm the right to security of person for sexual minorities. The court observed, “We censure the rank inaction on the part of the Police and the insensitivity shown by them… We hold that Government officials, in particular the jurisdictional Police, have a duty to expeditiously and appropriately respond whenever complaints of this nature are received from the members of the LGBTQIA+ community.” This was a stern reminder that law enforcement agencies must be proactive in safeguarding vulnerable groups.

Acknowledging the conservative backdrop of Indian society, the court empathized with the detenu’s mother’s concerns but reaffirmed that an adult individual has the constitutional right to choose their life partner. The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and autonomy, stating, “We understand the feelings of the mother who might have wished her daughter to be normal, get married and settle down like a heterosexual woman. However, the daughter being an adult is entitled to choose her own life.” The judgment reinforced the principle that parental desires cannot override an adult’s fundamental freedoms.

The court also cited international human rights law, particularly the Yogyakarta Principles, and noted earlier landmark decisions such as the NALSA and Navtej Singh Johar judgments that have progressively affirmed the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons. Additionally, it referenced the Madras High Court’s precedent in approving the “Deed of Familial Association,” which recognizes civil unions among LGBTQIA+ persons, further strengthening the legal framework supporting non-traditional family structures.

Interesting Observation About Late Justice Leila Seth

The bench paid tribute to the late Justice Leila Seth, the first woman Chief Justice of a High Court in India, renowned for her progressive and empathetic stance on LGBTQIA+ rights. Justice Seth had openly acknowledged and supported her gay son, becoming an emblem of parental acceptance at a time when societal prejudices were much harsher. The court recalled a poignant note penned by Justice Seth during the time when the Supreme Court, in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. NAZ Foundation, had upheld the criminalization of homosexuality under Section 377 IPC. In that note, Justice Seth wrote with profound compassion:

“What makes life meaningful is love. The right that makes us human is the right to love. To criminalize the expression of that right is profoundly cruel and inhumane. To acquiesce in such criminalization or, worse, to recriminalize it is to display the very opposite of compassion.”

The court contrasted this enlightened perspective with the resistance shown by the detenu’s mother, observing soberly, “Not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth.”

Justice Leila Seth’s legacy, as remembered by the court, embodied a compassionate approach towards sexual minorities, emphasizing that love and acceptance are fundamental human values. Her contributions as a jurist and member of the Justice Verma Committee further cemented her place as a beacon of justice and human rights.

Court’s Order

In its final order, the Madras High Court allowed the habeas corpus petition, directing that the detenu be set at liberty and permitted to live with the petitioner, thereby upholding her personal liberty and right to choose her partner. The court explicitly restrained the detenu’s natal family from interfering with her personal life or liberty. Recognizing the ongoing threat and challenges faced by LGBTQIA+ individuals, the court also issued a continuing mandamus directing the jurisdictional police to provide adequate protection and respond promptly to any future complaints or threats against the detenu and petitioner. This was a clear mandate emphasizing that law enforcement officials bear an explicit duty to protect the rights and dignity of sexual minorities.

Credits: Adv. Deeksha Rai