Judiciary must perform role of catalyst for LGBTQIA rights: Former SC judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul
He was speaking on Saturday at the launch event of a policy document on recommendations for queer inclusion in India's legal and social landscape, organised by Keshav Suri Foundation and Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.
"The judiciary must perform the role of a catalyst. India's legislative landscape for LGBTQIA recognition has evolved, but significant gaps persist. The term queer is not defined in Indian law, and asexual individuals are invisible in policy frameworks," Justice Kaul said.
During his keynote address, the former apex court judge also referred to the tennis player Radhika Yadav's murder case.
"The challenge that we face in our country, and actually across the world, I think, . See a thing as simple as a man-woman relationship, where a woman chooses on her own forget the cities, look at how it dealt with at different levels, inter-caste marriages; people let loose the process which destroy the lives of their children the recent episode two days ago where a father shoots her own daughter when we talk of problems; please look at the society all around; this also has to change," Justice Kaul said.
He said that in February this year, the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment introduced certain administrative measures for queer couples, including access to ration cards, joint bank accounts, and the right to claim a partner's body in case of death .
"These measures, prompted by the Supreme Court's judgment, are a step forward but remain limited, as they are not enshrined in statute and do not address comprehensive rights," he said.
Justice Kaul said that anti-discrimination law was more crucial in today's age, where access to capital was the requisite for access to capital.
"Starting a business, buying a house or even otherwise bridging personal needs is wholly dependent on factors such as ease of availing loans or finances, opening bank accounts. Undoubtedly, there are barriers to access for LGBTQIA persons to even something as routine as opening a bank account, which requires one to carry a document which conforms to gender identity," he said.
"An almost existential difficulty faced by LGBTQIA persons is access to goods, financial services and access to public infrastructure," the ex-top court judge added.
He said the future of queer rights required action in the realm of the legislature and the executive, with a coordinated effort across various ministries and departments.
"There is also, a degree of legislative inertia on the rights and entitlements of queer persons, which risks prolonging the legal limbo for same-sex couples seeking marriage, adoption, or inheritance rights. A conservative attitude still persists across a large populace of the country, which hinders acceptance," said Justice Kaul.
He said that the country was on a path of progressive recognition of the rights of LGBTQIA persons and that urban areas and younger generations showed greater openness, even while the rural and conservative communities remained hostile.
"I truly believe that the future is more promising than what is behind us, and in the words of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California, 'Hope will never be silent," said Justice Kaul.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
6 minutes ago
- India.com
Why is India not falling into the trap of Russia and China..., taking cautious steps while joining RIC because...
Why is India not falling into the trap of Russia and China..., taking cautious steps while joining RIC because… New Delhi: The trilateral forum between Russia, India, and China (RIC) has become the talk of the town in recent days. Moscow is trying to restart the forum, as China has also given its consent. Now, India has to decide. The Indian Foreign Ministry has been very cautious in its statements on this issue. The question arising is: why is New Delhi cautious about forming a trio with Beijing and Moscow, as it already has good bilateral relations with Russia? However, it is not as easy as it looks. Retired Indian diplomat Prabhu Dayal, in his article in Firstpost, stated that the RIC structure has been largely inactive in recent years, and the reason for this is military tension and mistrust between India and China. 'Cold War' Continues India And China Dayal said even after recent agreements, tension will remain on the India-China border. It is to be noted that after the Galwan clash of 2020, the relation of India and China deteriorated further and the situation on the India-China border remains complex. Additionally, the increasing infrastructure development near the border by China is further increasing escalating the tensions. Earlier this year, Indian Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi stated that India will not reduce the number of soldiers deployed on the Line of Actual Control. Years Old Dispute Notably, the India-China conflict has deep historical roots. China's long-time challenge to India's sovereignty over Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh, including its depiction of Aksai Chin as Chinese territory on official maps and its renaming of Arunachal Pradesh as 'Jangnan,' has further escalated the tension. Additionally, China's strategic alliance with Pakistan, which includes military and intelligence support, has just intensified existing tensions, creating a major geopolitical rift between India and China. Support Of Pakistan On International Forums After the Pahalgam terror attack, China provided arms and ammunition to Pakistan like – PL-15 air-to-air missiles. During the recent clashes Beijing also provided air defence and satellite support to Islamabad. Not only that China has always backed Pakistan on the issue of terrorism at international forums such as the United Nations, blocking India's efforts. China vetoed India's UN Security Council resolution to designate five Pakistani individuals as terrorists responsible for attacks on India. India's cautious stance toward China stems from a historical perspective and concerns about China's actions and goals.
India.com
6 minutes ago
- India.com
Trumps Five Jets Remark Sparks Political Row in India; Rahul Gandhi Demands Clarity, BJP Hits Back
New Delhi: A political clash has erupted in India following US President Donald Trump's ambiguous remarks about five jets being downed during Operation Sindoor, India's military response to the April Pahalgam terror attack. The comment has prompted Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi to demand an explanation from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while the BJP has accused him of harboring a "traitor's mentality." Trump, speaking at a private dinner on Friday, claimed that five fighter jets were shot down during the operation but did not specify whether the aircraft belonged to India or Pakistan. "Planes were being shot out of the air. Five, five, four or five, but I think five jets were shot down actually," Trump said. Operation Sindoor was launched by India to strike terror infrastructure across nine locations in Pakistan. These included key sites like the Jaish-e-Mohammed headquarters in Bahawalpur and Lashkar-e-Taiba's base in Muridke. In the aftermath, Pakistan claimed it had shot down multiple Indian jets — including three Rafale fighters, which are among the most advanced aircraft in the Indian Air Force. India acknowledged some losses during the operation but has not disclosed a specific figure. Instead, it emphasized the strategic lessons learned from the mission. "What is important is that, not the jet being down, but why they were being down," said India's Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan, while firmly denying Pakistan's assertion that six Indian jets were shot down. He added, "The good part is that we are able to understand the tactical mistake which we made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and fly all our jets again, targeting at long range." Following Trump's comments, Rahul Gandhi took to Twitter (X) on Saturday, sharing the video and demanding answers from the Prime Minister. "Modi ji, what is the truth behind the five jets? The country has a right to know," he wrote in Hindi. — Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) July 19, 2025 Responding sharply, BJP leader Amit Malviya pointed out that Trump had not specified the nationality of the jets and accused Rahul Gandhi of aligning with Pakistan's narrative. "Rahul Gandhi's mentality is that of a traitor. In his statement, Trump neither took the name of India nor said that those five planes belonged to India. Then why did the prince of Congress accept him as belonging to India? Why did he not accept him as belonging to Pakistan? Does he sympathise more with Pakistan than his own country?" Malviya wrote in a post on X in Hindi. He continued, "The truth is that Pakistan has not yet recovered from Operation Sindoor... but Rahul Gandhi is in pain! Whenever the country's army teaches a lesson to the enemy, Congress gets irritated. Anti-India sentiment is no longer a habit of Congress; it has become its identity. Rahul Gandhi should make it clear - is he an Indian or a spokesperson of Pakistan?"
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC bench to hear Presidential reference on timelines for bills on July 22
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President Press Trust of India New Delhi A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on July 22 the Presidential reference on whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. According to the cause list posted on the apex court website, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar will be hearing the matter. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised her powers under Article 143(1) and posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies. Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court "if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon". The April 8 verdict, passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government, for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. Article 200 deals with situations with regard to the passage of bills by the state assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on grant of assent or withholding of assent or sending the bill to the President for reconsideration. Article 201 deals with the bills reserved for the President's consideration by the governor. The Centre has resorted to the presidential reference instead of seeking a review of the verdict, which has evoked sharp reactions in the political spectrum. The rules prescribe that the review petitions be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers, while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench. The apex court, however, may choose to refuse to answer any or all of the questions raised in the reference. Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of the governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for the President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon the governor to exercise constitutional options. The President said that similarly, Article 201, which prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent therefrom, does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution. President Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed. "Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor," the reference of May 13 said. President Murmu said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court of India. "It appears to me that the following questions of the law have arisen and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon," President Murmu said while posing 14 questions to the apex court for its opinion. The SC verdict has set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which passed the verdict, said that reserving a bill on grounds such as "personal dissatisfaction of Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations" was strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
