Latest news with #LeilaSeth
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Madras High Court affirms LGBTQIA+ rights amid same-sex marriage rulings
The Madras High Court affirmed that LGBTQIA+ individuals can form families through alternative means, recognizing "chosen families." This ruling came as the court ordered the release of a lesbian woman forcibly separated from her partner, criticizing the police's insensitive handling of the case and emphasizing the right to choose one's path. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Madras High Court has ruled that while the Supreme Court has not legalized same-sex marriage , individuals within the LGBTQIA+ community can still form families through alternative means. The court emphasized that 'marriage is not the sole mode to find a family' and recognized the concept of a 'chosen family' as established within LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.A division bench comprising Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan made these observations on May 22 while ordering the release of a 25-year-old lesbian woman who had been forcibly separated from her partner and subjected to harassment by her judges noted that not all parents are accepting, contrasting the detenue's mother unfavorably with Justice Leila Seth, who had publicly acknowledged and accepted her son's sexual orientation. 'The mother of the detenue is no Leila Seth. We understand her desire for her daughter to live a conventional heterosexual life, marry, and settle down. However, as an adult, the detenue is entitled to choose her own path,' the bench court also expressed discomfort with the term 'queer,' highlighting its dictionary definitions as 'strange' or 'odd' and questioned its appropriateness. 'For a homosexual individual, their sexual orientation is natural and normal. There is nothing strange about such inclinations. Why then should they be labeled queer?' the judges court criticized the local police for their insensitive handling of the case, particularly for compelling the detenue to return to her parents despite her wishes. The bench censured the police's 'rank inaction' and insensitivity, underscoring that government officials, especially police, have a duty to respond promptly and appropriately to complaints from LGBTQIA+ safeguard the detenue's rights, the court restrained her family members from interfering with her personal liberty and issued a writ of continuing mandamus directing the jurisdictional police to provide adequate protection to both the detenue and her partner, who had filed the habeas corpus petition.(With inputs from TOI)
News18
4 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Same-Sex Unions Not Marriages In Law But Queer Couples Can Form A Family: Madras High Court
Last Updated: The court invoked an emotional letter by late Justice Leila Seth and said not every parent is like her who could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation The Madras High Court recently ordered the release of a 25-year-old woman from the illegal custody of her natal family, declaring that no adult can be detained against their will merely for choosing a same-sex partner. A habeas corpus petition was filed by MA, seeking the release of her partner, D, who her father and other family members had allegedly confined. D's (the detenue's) mother, who accompanied her, accused the petitioner of leading her daughter astray and claimed she was addicted to drugs—allegations the court found baseless after observing the detenue's composure and clarity. The bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan interacted with the detenue in private, as per Supreme Court guidelines in Devu G Nair v State of Kerala, to ascertain her true wishes. The woman, a well-qualified adult, told the court that she is a lesbian and in a consensual relationship with the petitioner. She described being forcibly taken home, subjected to rituals intended to 'cure" her, and even beaten by her family members. Highlighting India's evolving legal recognition of LGBTQIA+ rights, the bench referenced landmark Supreme Court decisions, including NALSA v. Union of India, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, and the recognition of 'chosen families" in Deepika Singh v. CAT. The judges emphasised that sexual orientation and identity fall squarely within the protective ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing personal liberty and dignity. 'We feel a certain discomfort in employing the expression 'queer'," the bench observed. '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?" the court said. The judgment concluded with a continuing mandamus directing jurisdictional police to provide protection to the couple if required and restrained the woman's family from interfering with her liberty. 'We endeavoured in vain to impress upon the mother that her daughter, being an adult, is entitled to choose a life of her own," the court noted, while expressing empathy for the parent's social conditioning. The bench invoked a letter by the late Justice Leila Seth, who had once written emotionally about the criminalisation of homosexuality and the pain it caused families. 'What makes life meaningful is love. The right that makes us human is the right to love," she wrote. 'Not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth. She could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation," the bench emphasised. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India (2023), the high court stressed that it may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples, but they can very well form a family. 'Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family. The concept of 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence. The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family," the division bench held. First Published: June 05, 2025, 13:17 IST
Time of India
5 days ago
- General
- Time of India
LGBTQIA+ couples have right to find a family: Madras high court
Madras high court CHENNAI: Though Supreme Court has not legalised same-sex marriage, individuals can still form a family, Madras high court has said, adding: 'Marriage is not the sole mode to find a family. The concept of a 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.' A division bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan made the observation on May 22, while setting at liberty a 25-year-old lesbian woman, who was forcefully separated from her partner and subjected to harassment by her family. 'Not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth. She could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation,' the judges said. 'The mother of the detenue is no Leila Seth. We could understand her feelings and temperament. She wants her daughter to be like any other normal, heterosexual woman, get married and settle down in life. We endeavoured in vain to impress upon her that her daughter, being an adult, is entitled to choose a life of her own,' they added. Also, deprecating the use of the word 'queer' to identify non-heterosexual individuals, the judges said: 'We feel a certain discomfort in employing the expression 'queer'. Any standard dictionary defines this word as meaning strange or odd. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 가상화폐 3개이상 가지고 있다면 '이렇게'해라 크립토시그널 더 알아보기 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 queer?' they asked. The court further placed on record that the jurisdictional police behaved in an insensitive manner in the issue by forcing the detenue to go with her parents. 'We censure the rank inaction on the part of police and the insensitivity shown by them. We hold that govt 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,' the court said. The court then restrained the detenue's family members from interfering with her personal liberty and issued a writ of continuing mandamus to the jurisdictional police to afford adequate protection to the detenue and her partner who moved the habeas corpus petition.
Indian Express
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Women in judiciary: A mountain to climb
— Rituparna Patgiri (The Indian Express has launched a new series of articles for UPSC aspirants written by seasoned writers and scholars on issues and concepts spanning History, Polity, International Relations, Art, Culture and Heritage, Environment, Geography, Science and Technology, and so on. Read and reflect with subject experts and boost your chance of cracking the much-coveted UPSC CSE. In the following article, Rituparna Patgiri discusses the significance of gender diversity in judiciary.) Justice Leila Seth was sitting in the Delhi High Court one day when she heard some shuffling of feet and the soft murmur of many voices. She enquired from her reader whether any specially newsworthy case had suddenly been assigned to her. He replied: 'Oh no, no. This crowd is a group of farmers whom Prime Minister Charan Singh has invited to Delhi to see the sights. They have just visited the zoo: and now they have come to see the woman judge in the Delhi High Court.' Justice Leila Seth – the first woman Chief Justice of a state High Court (Himachal Pradesh) – recalls this incident from 1978 in her autobiography, On Balance. The curiosity to 'see' what a woman judge 'looked like' highlights how unusual it was to see a woman in such a position of judicial authority. Four decades later, India has yet to see a woman Chief Justice of the Supreme Court while the number of women judges in the apex court has also been very low. Since its establishment in 1950, the Supreme Court has had only 11 women judges. The first woman judge of the Supreme Court, Justice M. Fathima Beevi, was appointed in 1989 – 39 years after the court came into being. At present, there are only two women judges – Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice B. V. Nagarathna – out of the total 33, including the Chief Justice. Justice Trivedi is retiring on June 9, but Friday (May 16, 2025) marked her last working day. However, her retirement took an unexpected turn as the Supreme Court Bar Association didn't hold the traditional official farewell ceremony for her. Notably, after Justice Trivedi's retirement, the number of women judges would be reduced to only one. The situation is not much better even in the High Courts and the lower courts. According to the data from the Supreme Court Observer (2021), only 11.7% of judges in High Courts are women. Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura, Patna and Uttarakhand High Courts have no women judges. In the lower courts, women judges only account for 35%. These figures underline that gender imbalance exists across all levels of the judicial system. Moreover, viewed through an inter-sectional lens, the picture appears more troubling. In the last 75 years, there has been no Dalit or tribal woman judge in the Supreme Court. Justice M. Fathima Beevi has been the first – and so far, the only – Muslim woman judge of the Supreme Court. Currently, there are no women in the Supreme Court collegium – a system for the appointment and transfer of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts. Though it is not a Constitutional provision, the collegium system has evolved through judgments of the Supreme Court itself. It consists of the Chief Justice of India and four senior judges from the apex court. Only two women judges — Justice Ruma Pal and Justice R. Banumathi — have been a part of the collegium. Adequate representation of women in the Supreme Court collegium would perhaps help increase the number of women judges. A 2025 report by the Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR), Bengaluru, found that women judges in the Supreme Court serve one year less than their men counterparts on average. This shorter tenure affected their chances of rising to the senior positions, and subsequently, to the collegium. For instance, Justice B. V. Nagarathna is poised to become the first woman Chief Justice of India. But her tenure will only last for 36 days. The lack of gender diversity and women's under-representation in the judiciary often lead to judgments that reinforce existing patriarchal biases. It is visible in some of the recent judgments from the Allahabad High Court. For instance, on March 11, 2025, the Allahabad High Court granted bail in an alleged rape case and said that the woman had 'herself invited trouble and was also responsible for the same'. Similarly, on March 17, 2025, the court passed an order, involving a minor and two men, and said that grabbing breasts and breaking the strings of the girl's pyjamas were not sufficient to hold the charges of rape or attempt to rape. The Supreme Court had to intervene in both of these cases. These judgments have been criticised as 'insensitive' and 'inhuman'. Justice Bela Trivedi's remark that 'we should empower women through law, not sympathy' is particularly relevant here. Such judgements perhaps need to be seen in relation to the women's presence in the judiciary. In August 2022, the district and sessions judge at Kozhikode, cited the 'revealing and provocative dress' of the complainant as a valid ground to grant anticipatory bail to the accused in a molestation case. Again in 2022, the Bombay High Court ruled that the accused is a young boy and he was 'smitten by infatuation' while granting bail in the rape case of a minor. Judgments like these not only reinforce patriarchal beliefs but also deny justice to the victims and survivors. Therefore, it may be argued that appointments of women to the judiciary at all levels need to be normalised. Women need to have space to work as individuals – rather than being seen as symbolic representatives or torchbearers for all women. At the same time, it is also important that women judges are not confined to adjudicating only on women's issues. Spending efforts towards gender sensitisation and enhancing accountability could be a step in the right direction. Some states like Jharkhand, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Telangana and Bihar have reservations for women. But these measures seem insufficient. In addition to affirmative actions, some infrastructural improvements — such as better sanitation and toilet facilities, particularly in lower courts — would be crucial in encouraging more women to enter the judiciary. Moreover, regular surveys that take account of women's intersectional representation in the judiciary may also be conducted. Such data will be critical in addressing women's under-representation in the judiciary. Lastly, normalising women's participation in the judiciary is important for a more inclusive and representative legal system. Why is the under-representation of women in the Supreme Court and the judiciary considered problematic for gender justice in India? The lack of gender diversity and women's under-representation in the judiciary often lead to judgments that reinforce existing patriarchal biases. Evaluate. Justice Bela Trivedi said that 'we should empower women through law, not sympathy'. Comment. What role do infrastructure and basic facilities in lower courts play in enabling or discouraging women's participation in the judiciary? (Rituparna Patgiri is an Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Guwahati.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
