Latest news with #NavtejJohar
Indian Express
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Secretly recording your spouse's conversation doesn't protect ‘dignity'. Supreme Court must understand this
Few constitutional values enjoy as much reverence as dignity. It is woven into the very language of Article 21, repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in landmark cases —from Puttaswamy to Navtej Johar — as the foundation of liberty, privacy and autonomy. But dignity is a value that must be applied evenly. In recent weeks, however, its use by the judiciary has been both expansive and evasive: Expansive when it comes to protecting powerful institutions from speech, and evasive when it concerns the lived realities of surveillance and coercion faced by the vulnerable. In the ongoing case against comedian Samay Raina and others for allegedly mocking persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court orally observed that the right to dignity under Article 21 is higher than the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). While aimed at addressing offensive content, the formulation risks tipping the balance too far in favour of 'subjective hurt over demonstrable harm'. This is not an isolated trend. In other recent hearings, including one involving a cartoon critical of the Prime Minister, the SC granted relief while simultaneously observing that the cartoon 'definitely attracts penal action'. In such cases, dignity is being invoked not just as a shield for the vulnerable but as a sword to suppress dissent and satire — tools central to any democratic culture. Now, contrast this with the recent decision of another bench of the Supreme Court in Vibhor Garg v. Neha. Here, the Court held that a husband's secretly recorded phone conversations with his wife were admissible in divorce proceedings. The judgment upheld the exception in Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits disclosure of spousal communications in matrimonial litigation. The Court reasoned that such recordings advance the constitutional right to a fair trial, completely overlooking the gendered power dynamics that mark many Indian marriages and ignoring the constitutional standard laid down, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which held that any intrusion into privacy must pass a four-part proportionality test: Legality, legitimate aim, necessity, and minimal intrusion. This contrast between invoking dignity to restrict satire on the one hand and ignoring it in the face of domestic surveillance on the other reveals a troubling pattern. Dignity is often extended to shield the sentiments of institutions and the powerful, but rarely deployed to protect those more vulnerable — women, minorities, queer individuals, or those historically excluded from full citizenship. This is not how constitutional values are meant to function. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Court rightly struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, holding that speech could be restricted only when it incites imminent lawless action. The judgment established a high threshold for state interference in speech, grounded not in emotional reaction, but in demonstrable harm. Similarly, in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the Court refused to allow narco-analysis without consent, recognising the psychological and bodily integrity of the accused. In both cases, the Court protected individual autonomy and dignity against state or institutional overreach. But in Vibhor Garg, the Court failed to extend the same reasoning within the intimate — and often unequal — domain of the home. This selective application of dignity not only creates doctrinal confusion but also erodes trust in the Constitution's promise of equality. It raises uncomfortable questions: Whose dignity matters in our courts? Is it the institution's dignity or the individual's? A rights-sensitive approach must ask deeper questions: Was the act of surveillance itself abusive? Was the evidence obtained through coercion or manipulation? Does admitting it advance justice, or merely legalise private control? Without such inquiry, the law risks reinforcing the very hierarchies it claims to dismantle. Dignity cannot be a one-way street. It must be available to the person being mocked and the person being watched. It must protect the state's critics and the domestic survivor. The Constitution demands that dignity be more than a tool to silence. It must be a principle to protect, especially when power is uneven. Until our courts apply dignity with such consistency and courage, we will continue to confuse sentiment for principle, and suppress freedom in the name of protection. The writer is a practising advocate and founder of Project Saathi. Views expressed are personal
Time of India
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Workshop on LGBTQIA+ rights held at Knp Airport
Kanpur: A special workshop aimed at sensitising airport personnel on LGBTQIA+ rights was organised at Kanpur Airport on Thursday. The session was conducted by the Kanpur Queer Welfare Foundation (KQWF) in collaboration with the All India Satrangi Salaam Association (AISSA) and saw active participation from CISF personnel, airport staff, and airline representatives. The workshop focused on ensuring constitutionally compliant, inclusive, and dignified treatment of LGBTQIA+ and transgender passengers, particularly in security procedures. included discussions on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and landmark Supreme Court rulings such as NALSA (2014) and Navtej Johar (2018). The event was led by KQWF founder Anuj Pandey, co-founder Ehsan Ansari, and AISSA Chief Trustee Bhartendu Vimal Dubey. the session also featured community representatives Abhishek Kumar and Dev Singh, who shared real-life experiences and practical suggestions. A key part of the session included a 30-point guideline on respectful interaction with LGBTQIA+ individuals, addressing aspects such as language, physical checks, informed consent, and privacy. Role plays, case studies, and interactive discussions added depth to the training. KQWF announced that similar sessions will be held at other airports and CISF centres across the country, with AISSA providing legal and technical assistance.
Scroll.in
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
As UN faces a key vote on expert to protect LGBTQIA rights, will India finally be on the right side?
India's foreign policy faces other test, when it comes to the vote on July 7 during the 59th session of the United Nations' Human Rights Council, when member states will vote on whether to renew the mandate of the first UN independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 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.
