As UN faces a key vote on expert to protect LGBTQIA rights, will India finally be on the right side?
This mandate was established in 2016 and renewed in 2019 and 2022 and has been supported by a growing number of states from all regions. The current resolution to renew the mandate was presented by a core group of six Latin American countries – Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Uruguay .
It was co-sponsored by countries from all regions of the world, including European countries such as the United Kingdom and Spain, African countries such as South Africa and Cabo Verde and Asian countries such as Japan. Asian countries that have voted for the mandate in the past include Nepal, South Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia, Philippines and Thailand, thereby strongly indicating that for Asia, LGBTQIA rights is no more a zone to be avoided but actively supported.
In this trend of increasingly global support (with strong participation from the global south) for the proposition that discrimination and violence on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity have no place in our world, India's voice has been noticeably absent. While India has been a member of the Human Rights Council since 2016, on every resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity, India has unconscionably abstained.
Course for the future
The argument (though untenable) for abstention in 2016 was that the issue of decriminalisation was sub-judice and hence India could not take a position. However since the decriminalisation decision in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India by the Supreme Court this position cannot be taken anymore. Navtej Johar has made explicit the position of the Supreme Court that 'history owes an apology to the members of this community and their families, for the delay in providing redressal for the ignominy and ostracism that they have suffered through the centuries'
The court also said, 'It is difficult to right the wrongs of history. But we can certainly set the course for the future. That we can do by saying, as I propose to say in this case, that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders have a constitutional right to equal citizenship in all its manifestations.'
Unfortunately while the Supreme Court has acknowledged discrimination against LGBTQI persons as an egregious wrong, this thinking is yet to influence foreign policy. As such, India inspite of this historic and progressive decision, has chosen to remain mute both in 2019 and 2022 when it came to the resolution for renewing the sexual orientation and gender identity. mandate.
This silence of the Indian government is untenable as the judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India has removed any possible legal ambiguity with respect to the fact that LGBTQIA persons are entitled to all human rights under the constitution.
Combatting discrimination
The mandate of the independent expert is based on the principle of dialogue with both states and civil society and aims to take forward best practices with respect to combatting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Since the post was established, three successive mandate holders have conducted official visits to 11 countries, produced 17 reports documenting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity – including the impact of the criminalisation of same-sex relations between consenting adults, the need to legally recognise a person's gender, and the situation of LGBT persons who are forcibly displaced, among others. They also sent communications documenting allegations of human rights violations to 171 states across all regions.
It is of global significance that the mandate be renewed for another three years as so doing will ensure that there will be a spotlight on the discrimination and violence suffered by LGBTQIA persons in United Nations spaces. This has brought global attention to the often invisible suffering imposed on LBGTQIA persons. The mandate will enable LGBTQIA persons to continue to bring attention to egregious human rights violations and amplify the call to end violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
This upcoming vote is an opportunity for India to demonstrate a commitment to upholding human rights standards and take on the role of a human rights leader. India, inspite of being the world's largest democracy, has shown little inclination to infuse its constitutional vision, grounded in a strong commitment to civil and political rights, into its foreign policy. This is yet another opportunity to shed that lassitude and stand on the right side of history.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
8 minutes ago
- Hans India
SIR appears to be trust deficit issue: SC
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday called the Bihar special intensive revision (SIR) row "largely a trust deficit issue' as the Election Commission of India (ECI) claimed roughly 6.5 crore people of the total 7.9 crore voting population didn't have to file any documents for them or their parents featured in the 2003 electoral roll. The top court is hearing a batch of pleas against the Election Commission electoral roll revision exercise in Bihar. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi during the hearing remarked it "largely appears to be a case of trust deficit, nothing else' as it questioned the petitioners challenging the EC's June 24 decision of conducting the SIR on the ground that it would disenfranchise one crore voters. "If out of 7.9 crore voters, 7.24 crore voters responded to the SIR, it demolishes theory of one crore voters missing or disenfranchised," the bench told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioner and RJD leader Manoj Jha. The top court also agreed with the EC decision to not accept Aadhaar and voter cards as conclusive proof of citizenship in the ongoing exercise and said it has to be supported by other documents. Sibal contended that despite residents holding Aadhaar, ration and EPIC cards, officials refused to accept the documents. "Is it your argument that people who have no documents but are in Bihar and therefore he should be considered as a voter of the state. That can be allowed. He has to show or submit some documents (sic)," the bench said. When Sibal said people were struggling to find birth certificates and other documents of their parents, Justice Kant said, "It is a very sweeping statement that in Bihar nobody has the documents. If this happens in Bihar, then what will happen in other parts of the country?" Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi and advocate Prashant Bhushan, who were representing different political parties, also questioned the timeline for the completion of the exercise and the data of 65 lakh voters who were declared as dead or migrated or registered in other constituencies. Political activist Yogendra Yadav, who addressed the court in person, questioned the data given by the poll panel and said instead of 7.9 crore voters there was total adult population of 8.18 crore and the design of SIR exercise was to delete the voters. "They (EC) were not able to find any individual whose name was added and the booth level officers visited house to house for deletion of names," Yadav said, calling it a case of "total disenfranchisement". Sibal during the hearing said while in one constituency, contrary to the poll panel's claims, 12 people declared dead were found alive, in another instance alive persons were declared dead. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the poll panel, said the exercise of such a nature was "bound to have some defects here and there at the draft stage" and to claim dead persons were declared alive and alive as dead could always be corrected as it was only a draft roll. The bench in the beginning of the hearing told the ECI to "be ready" with facts and figures for it would be question over the number of voters before the exercise commenced; number of dead before and now aside from other relevant details. The hearing would resume on Wednesday. On July 29, terming the election commission a constitutional authority deemed to act in accordance with law, the top court said it will step in immediately if there is "mass exclusion" in the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar. The draft roll was published on August 1 and the final roll is scheduled to be published on September 30 amid Opposition claims that the ongoing exercise will deprive crores of eligible citizens from their right to vote. On July 10, the top court asked the EC to consider Aadhaar, voter ID and ration cards as valid documents as it allowed the poll panel to continue with its exercise in Bihar. The EC affidavit has justified its ongoing SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, saying it adds to the purity of the election by "weeding out ineligible persons" from the electoral rolls. Beside RJD MP Jha and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, Congress' K C Venugopal, Supriya Sule from the Sharad Pawar NCP faction, D Raja from Communist Party of India, Harinder Singh Malik from Samajwadi Party, Arvind Sawant from Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray), Sarfraz Ahmed from Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and Dipankar Bhattacharya of CPI (ML) have jointly moved the top court challenging the June 24 decision of the election commission. Several other civil society organisations like PUCL, NGO Association of Democratic Reforms and activists like Yogendra Yadav have moved the top court against the EC order.
New Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Zelenskyy says Putin wants the rest of Ukraine's Donetsk region as part of a ceasefire
Seeking Trump's ear before the summit Trump has said he wants to see whether Putin is serious about ending the war, now in its fourth year. The U.S. president has disappointed allies in Europe by saying Ukraine will have to give up some Russian-held territory. He also said Russia must accept land swaps, although it was unclear what Putin might be expected to surrender. The Europeans and Ukraine are wary that Putin, who has waged the biggest land war in Europe since 1945 and used Russia's energy might to try to intimidate the EU, might secure favorable concessions and set the outlines of a peace deal without them. Referring to the format for ceasefire talks, Zelenskyy said on Tuesday that the U.S. proposed a bilateral meeting, between the U.S. and Russia, and then a trilateral meeting that would include Ukraine. Zelenskyy said the presence of Europe was important for Kyiv because these were the only partners offering security guarantees, including funding the Ukrainian army. European countries' overarching fear is that Putin will set his sights on one of them next if he wins in Ukraine. Their leaders said Tuesday they "welcome the efforts of President Trump towards ending Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine." But, they underlined, "the path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine" and "international borders must not be changed by force." The Europeans on Wednesday will make a fresh attempt to rally Trump to Ukraine's cause at virtual meetings convened by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump did not confirm whether he would take part but did say "I'm going to get everybody's ideas" before meeting with Putin. Russia holds shaky control over four of the country's regions, two in the country's east and two in the south. Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the chief of Zelenskyy's office, said anything short of Russia's strategic defeat would mean that any ceasefire deal would be on Moscow's terms, erode international law and send a dangerous signal to the world.
Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- Indian Express
If lawyer commits an offence, no exceptions should apply, SG Tushar Mehta tells Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its decision on the question whether lawyers can be summoned by probe agencies for their legal opinion while investigating their clients. A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria was hearing a suo motu case on summoning of 2 senior advocates by probe agencies while representing clients in cases. Supreme Court Bar Association president and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh referred to the 2005 judgment in the Jacob Mathew case, which dealt with FIRs against doctors in medical negligence cases and mandated a preliminary examination by an expert committee comprising doctors before registration of FIR. Singh said it can similarly be laid down that lawyers can be summoned only after approval of a magistrate court. Attorney General R Venkataramani said it will amount to giving a 'long rope. That may not be required'. He said he will submit his views including 'where the line should be drawn'. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said he should never be called for giving a professional opinion. He said that if a lawyer commits an offence, no exceptions should apply. Agreeing, the CJI said, 'You were referring to a lawyer advising how to dispose of a dead body or fabricate evidence. That will be covered by section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence).' On the suggestion for a court approval to issue summons to lawyers, the SG said, 'Some separate regime being provided for one class of people may not withstand Article 14.' The CJI, however, pointed out that the ruling in the Jacob Mathew case also creates a separate class and asked the SG, 'Have you sought a review of the judgement?' Mehta said he was not opposing the decision in Jacob Mathew. In a note submitted to the court, the SG said, 'Whatsoever. It is unequivocally submitted that the attorney-client privilege is an important and one of the most sacrosanct principles of law and must remain so.' 'The core objective of attorney-client privilege is to promote open and frank communication, ensuring that litigants can candidly disclose all relevant information to their lawyers without fear of subsequent compelled disclosure. This uninhibited exchange is vital for advocate/lawyers to provide proper legal advice, which in turn encourages compliance with the law and facilitates effective legal representation. This protection encourages transparency in the legal advice process, fosters respect for the rule of law, and enhances the adversarial system by ensuring that parties can prepare their cases without fear. It is pertinent to note that this privilege is to protect the litigants and at the same time, confers a qualified privilege to the lawyers.' Mehta said 'lawyer's privilege of not disclosing his communication with his client is a recognised statutory right under Sections 126-129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [now repealed] and continues to be so under Sections 132-134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023'. He added that 'if a lawyer has participated in any act which amounts to or is a subject matter of an offence, beyond his professional duty, the same law which applies to others will apply to lawyers also'.
