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
India Gazette
3 hours ago
- India Gazette
SC grants protection from arrest to two MP-journalists alleging police assault over report on illegal sand mining
New Delhi [India], June 9 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Monday granted 'protection from arrest' to two Madhya Pradesh-based journalists who alleged they were assaulted by Bhind police for reporting on illegal sand mining in the Chambal region. A bench of Justices PK Mishra and Manmohan dismissed their petition and granted the journalists liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court (High Court of MP) within two weeks in this regard. '...Considering the allegations made in the petition, we relegate the petitioners to approach the concerned High Court within a period of two weeks from today,' the Court said in its order. The bench clarified that the journalists shall not be arrested until the concerned High Court considers the matter. Journalists Shashikant Jatav and Amarkant Singh Chouhan had moved the top court seeking protection for their lives as they claimed that Bhind police had assaulted them over their reporting on illegal sand mining in the Chambal region. As per their plea, they had been abducted, assaulted and were subjected to casteist slurs by the Bhind police. At the previous hearing, the top court refused to grant interim protection to the journalists, stating that it was unaware of the facts of the case and that a response from State authorities (respondents) in this regard was necessary before taking any decision. The Court also raised doubts over the journalists' allegations that their lives were under threat in the last hearing. Further, the Court had also taken a dim view of the fact that certain allegations had been made against an IPS officer in connection with the alleged assault on the journalists without allowing him to explain the matter. The Court also sought the responses of the Madhya Pradesh and Delhi governments to the plea in the last hearing. Today, the Court granted the journalists interim protection from being arrested and referred them to the MP High Court. (ANI)
Indian Express
15 hours ago
- Indian Express
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.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
‘Despite its flaws, the Collegium system preserves judicial independence,' says SC judge Justice Surya Kant
Strongly defending the collegium system of judicial appointments, Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant said on Saturday that, 'despite its imperfections, it serves as a crucial institutional safeguard … preserving the Judiciary's autonomy.' Speaking at Seattle University on the topic 'The Quiet Sentinel: Courts, Democracy, and the Dialogue Across Borders,' Justice Kant noted that the collegium 'significantly limits interference by the Executive and Legislature, thereby preserving the Judiciary's autonomy and insulating judges from extraneous pressures that could otherwise compromise their impartiality.' He acknowledged that the system 'has been subject to sustained criticism—particularly regarding the opacity of its deliberative processes and the lack of publicly articulated criteria—but recent efforts by the Supreme Court signal a growing commitment to enhancing transparency and public confidence in it.' Referring to proactive judicial interventions that advance constitutional compassion, he asked in his June 4 address, 'How far can courts go in shaping policy?' and 'Is judicial creativity a virtue or a vice?' 'The answer, I believe, lies in intent and integrity. When courts act to empower the powerless, grounded in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not usurp democracy—they deepen it,' he said. Justice Kant conceded that the judiciary 'has not remained impervious to criticism that at times it breaches the fine line between judicial activism and judicial overreach' and added that 'in recent years, there has been a discernible shift toward greater institutional self-restraint in select domains. The Court has increasingly sought to nudge rather than command, and to engage with other branches of government in efforts to increase dialogic remedies. This evolving balance reflects an awareness that judicial authority is most enduring when it is exercised with a sense of humility—when the Court is seen not as an omnipotent arbiter but as a co-traveller in the democratic journey, grounded in constitutional values.' He described the judiciary as 'the sentinel of constitutional morality' and said it 'has been instrumental in shaping this very democracy's moral spine.' Recalling past challenges, Justice Kant observed that 'the Indian judiciary, too, traversed periods of profound trial and transformation. Particularly during the Emergency, the Court grappled with serious challenges to its independence and, at times, exhibited troubling deference to executive power. Yet, this phase of institutional strain gave way to a renewed judicial consciousness.' He added that 'the judiciary's evolving relationship with its own independence lies at the very heart of how India's vast, pluralistic democracy continues to function with remarkable cohesion. It is not merely the existence of judicial independence that is noteworthy, but rather the degree and contours of that independence—how it is asserted, negotiated, and exercised—that renders the Indian experience particularly distinctive within the global constitutional landscape.' On the role of courts in a democracy, he said, 'constitutional democracy is … a system where majorities are checked, where minorities are protected, and where principles cannot be sacrificed at the altar of popularity,' and 'in such a system, courts cannot function as mere referees.' He stressed, 'in a democracy as vast and diverse as India's, it is only when the judiciary wears its power lightly, and its conscience visibly, that it can remain not only the last word, but also a trusted voice among many in our collective democratic journey.' 'Judiciary may not be the most visible arm of the state, it may not command battalions or shape budgets, but it performs a task more difficult: it keeps alive the promise of justice. In India, this task has often been thankless, occasionally triumphant, and always essential. The judiciary is not a saviour; it is a sentinel. It does not march. It watches. And when necessary, it speaks—not to please, but to preserve.' Earlier, during a visit to the Washington State Supreme Court's Temple of Justice in Olympia on June 3, Justice Kant highlighted the SC's defence of free speech rights, noting that 'pre-censorship and vague notions of public order cannot trump the right to free expression,' and adding, 'these are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations—that democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity.' Drawing parallels between the Indian and American judiciaries, he said, 'in both countries, the Judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the Executive may hold … Both our systems were designed not to trust power blindly, but to restrain it.' At a fireside chat at Microsoft Corporation headquarters on June 6, Justice Kant touched on the rise of technology such as artificial intelligence in the judicial process. He said he was 'firmly convinced that any contemplation of AI must be guided by a deep moral compass. Shaping the future demands more than innovation—it calls for an unwavering adherence to foundational values. Transparency, equity, responsibility, and respect for human dignity must not be afterthoughts, but the pillars upon which all technological advancement rests.' He warned that 'technology, if left unchecked, can reflect and reinforce societal inequities. AI is not a perfect technology and it can perhaps never replace the human element that the entire Rawlsian theory of justice hinges on,' and added, 'technology must remain subordinate to our higher commitments to fairness, equity, and human dignity' and 'must adapt to the lived realities of the people it seeks to serve.' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
