India
Marriage equality proponents make case to India Supreme Court
Hearing to resume on Tuesday
The Indian Supreme Court on April 18 started hearing a case on whether to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in the country.
Chief Justice Dhananjay Yeshwant Chandrachud is heading a panel of five judges to decide if the time is now to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in the country where being LGBTQ is not a crime, but a same sex couple cannot marry.
The marriage equality case on the first day of the hearing started with a heated exchange between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the country’s second highest legal official, and Chandrachud. The solicitor general argued which forum should be the only constitutional forum that could adjudicate the marriage equality law. Chandrachud wanted to hear the merits of the case first. Mehta insisted on hearing the issue first.
“I am in charge. I will decide. We will hear the petitioners first,” said Chandrachud.” “I will not allow anyone to dictate how proceedings will happen in this court.”
Judges felt a little shocked when Mehta said that if that is the case, let him then take time to see if the government should participate in the hearing. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, one of the five judges who is currently hearing the validity of marriage equality in India, asked Mehta if he meant that the government would not participate in the hearing.
“None of us know what a farmer in south India thinks or a businessman thinks in North India,” said Mehta.
Chandrachud argued that the court would consider any request other than adjournment. After the heated argument in the court, senior lawyer Mukul Rohtagi opened the case for petitioners.
“We are persons of the same sex, and we have the same rights as like the heterosexual groups of the society this has been held so, and we need not reinvent the wheel and only stumbling block was Section 377, and our actions were subject to criminality, and now it is gone,” said Rohtagi, who represents the plaintiffs. “If our rights are identical and then we should enjoy full array of rights as under Articles 14, 15 and 21.”
Article 14 of the Indian constitution deals with equality before the law.
The article says that the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within Indian territory based on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 21 says no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.
Rohtagi argued that the court should not wait for legislative action when fundamental rights are involved.
“Our lives are getting passed,” said Rohtagi. “We are getting old, and we need to be respected as in a marriage. Call them queer, call them gay. People look at them differently, and that is a violation of Article 21. A violation of right to life with dignity and also violation of Article 15 when there can be no discrimination based on caste, sex.”
While arguing, Rohtagi brought up the Respect for Marriage Act in the U.S. to support his argument about the validity of marriage equality. When the court was hearing the validity of the marriage equality case, Chandrachud made a note to restrict the discussion on the gender-neutral interpretation and evolve a civil union concept.
Menaka Guruswamy, a senior lawyer, while arguing for the plaintiffs, said she could not designate her life partner for life insurance and that people like her would keep coming to the court to redress individual grievances.
The Washington Blade last November reported that the Life Insurance Corporation of India, a public sector insurance company under India’s Finance Ministry, had said that there is no legal bar for anyone to make their same sex partner a beneficiary in insurance policies in the name of that person.
Mehta during the middle of the hearing said that the question is not granting a socio-legal sanction. It has been clearly saying no one shall discriminate against the trans person, including unfair treatment and denial of employment, and here trans includes LGBTQ and intersex and not what is understood in the conventional sense. He also said that Hindus and Muslims will be affected, and that is why states should be heard.
Chandrachud said that the notion of biological man and biological woman is absolute. The chief justice also said that it is not a question of genitals because the Special Marriage Act’s definition of man and woman is not restricted to genitals.
The Special Marriage Act is an Indian marriage law enacted in 1954 that provides a legal framework for the marriage of people belonging to different religions or castes.
Mehta argued other laws will be redundant if the marriage equality law takes effect. He also requested the Supreme Court consult all states in India for their response as marriage laws are listed in the concurrent list of the constitution that states union governments and state governments can make laws on the subjects enlisted under the concurrent list. Marriage falls under the concurrent list of the Indian constitution.
Kapil Sibal, a senior lawyer for Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind, a leading Islamic scholar organization in India, told the Supreme Court he believes in the autonomy of an individual and that everyone needs to celebrate the union of two people. But Sibal also argued that if same-sex marriage is allowed who will take care of the child? Who will be the father? Who will be the mother? Sibal said that in international examples countries reform all other laws to accommodate these things.
“I am all for same sex marriage but not in this fashion,” said Sibal. “If this is not done as a whole then let it not be done at all.”
Rohatgi said before the bench that the LGBTQ and intersex community has a fundamental right to get married and have it registered like heterogenous brethren of the society.
“I was amazed to hear that we are not equals and we need to be equal to stigmatized lot, and that is why court should step in, and that is why even after 377 judgment we are here,” said Rohatgi. “That is why state is telling us here that we are not equals.”
While highlighting equality and justice for everyone, Chandrachud, said that justice is to each of us, liberty to each of us, equality to each of us, and fraternity for all of us.
On April 19, the second day of the hearing, the central government filed a fresh application and urged the judges to take into account the state governments’ views since “marriage” is on the concurrent list. The central government in its application said that the Department of Legal Affairs has also written to all chief secretaries of state to submit their views on same-sex marriage in case notice is not issued to them. The central government also said that states should submit their views in 10 days so that center can present the case before the Supreme Court.
Rohatgi said that the LGBTQ and intersex community suffers under the majority. He said it is not the law, but a mindset that is bothering LGBTQ and intersex people in their daily life. Rohatgi also said that society accepts what the law is and highlighted to the judges that the LGBTQ and intersex community has no representation in the Parliament and that’s why the community has approached the court. Rohatgi also argued that constitutional morality would become a habit for the people when the same is upheld by the Supreme Court.
“State cannot discriminate against an individual on the basis of a characteristic over which the individual does not have control,” said Chandrachud. “When you see it is innate characteristics, then it counter urban elitist concept. Urban perhaps because more people are coming out of the closet. Government does not have any data also to show that same sex marriage is an urban elitist concept.”
On the third day of hearing, senior lawyer K.V. Vishwanathan appeared for the plaintiffs and argued that if one can be a son, daughter, sister, father-in-law, uncle, aunt and partner, then what holds the court to give marital status to the same-sex couples.
“It is only the sexual orientation which is beyond my control and it is not in conformity with heterosexual norms and thus will not accord you protection like the normal married couples,” said Vishwanathan. “Procreation is a valid defense to negate the right to marriage.”
Vishwanathan also argued that marriage is the coming together of two souls and to be told that it is to be looked at from procreation purpose is fallacious.
“What happens when there is a heterosexual couple when there is domestic violence. What kind of impact on children? So much for being heterosexual,” noted Chandrachud. “What about father coming back home drunk thrashing up the mother and asking money for alcohol? there is nothing absolute at the cost of being trolled. Answers to what we say in court is in trolls and not in court.”
The Supreme Court of the land also noted that the government does not have the data to prove that same-sex marriage is an urban elitist concept.
“People come out of closet,” noted the Supreme Court.
The central government, in its application, had highlighted that the concept of marriage equality is an ‘urban elitist’ notion.
The hearing on LGBTQ and intersex marriage rights has attracted reactions from across the nation.
Ranvir Shorey, a Bollywood actor, reacted to Supreme Court’s hearing and said that there is no fixed way to be a man or a woman.
“Better to think of it in terms of polarity, or scale. Those who fuss over binaries ought to remember there is an infinity between the two too,” said Shorey in a tweet. “Jurisprudence is derived from human understanding of nature’s principles. Laws exist so a society can function as a collective, while trying to preserve the rights of the individual. The more our laws move away from nature, the more at conflict we will be with ourselves.”
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad has opposed the marriage equality rights petition and said the “haste” with which the Supreme Court is hearing the petitions for legal recognition of same-sex marriage is not appropriate. The organization also said that the court should have asked for the opinion of religious leaders and experts from diverse fields.
The Bar Council of India, a statutory body that regulates legal practices and education in the country, on Sunday held a joint meeting with all the state Bar Councils in the country and passed a resolution concerning marriage equality. The Bar Council of India has requested the Supreme Court to leave the issue of marriage equality for legislative consideration.
“India is one of the most socio-religiously diverse countries in the world consisting of a mosaic of beliefs. Hence, any matter which is likely to tinker with the fundamental social structure, a matter which has a far-reaching impact on our socio-cultural and religious beliefs should necessarily come through the legislative process only, the meeting unanimously opined. Any decision by the Apex Court in such a sensitive matter may prove very harmful for the future generation of our country.” the release stated.
The Bar Council of India also said that more than 99.9 percent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of marriage equality. The Supreme Court will start hearing the government’s arguments on Tuesday.
Ankush Kumar is a reporter who has covered many stories for Washington and Los Angeles Blades from Iran, India and Singapore. He recently reported for the Daily Beast. He can be reached at mohitk@opiniondaily.news. He is on Twitter at @mohitkopinion.
A same-sex couple on Aug. 14 petitioned the Bombay High Court to consider their challenge of provisions of India’s Income Tax Act that only exempt gifts between heterosexual spouses from taxation.
Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act states any money, property, or asset received without adequate consideration that exceeds 50,000 rupees ($570.96) is taxed as “income from other sources.”
An exception in the fifth provision exempts such gifts when received from “relatives,” a category that includes “spouses.” The law, however, does not provide a separate definition of the term “spouse.”
The petitioners have asked the court to declare the use of the term “spouse” in Section 56(2)(x) unconstitutional, arguing its application effectively excludes same-sex couples from the exemption.
The Bombay High Court has issued notice to the attorney general of India, the country’s top law officer, on the petition.
The petitioners, represented by lawyers Dhruv Janssen-Sanghavi, Tejas Popat, Vishesh Malviya, Amandeep Mehta, and Aanchal Maheshwari, argue that denying them the exemption available to heterosexual spouses amounts to discrimination.
“While not entering into the merits at this stage,” observed Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla on Aug. 14. “Since the constitutional validity is challenged, we issue notice to the attorney general of India returnable on Sept. 18, 2025. We also direct the registry to issue notice to Respondent No. 2, returnable on Sept. 18, 2025.”
The petitioners told the court that the current framework violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian constitution, which guarantee equality under the law, prohibit discrimination on grounds including sex, and protect the right to life and personal liberty.
“The Writ Petition is filed to declare and hold that the term ‘spouse’ appearing in the explanation to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) an unconstitutional inasmuch as it excludes the Petitioners from the scope and definition of the term ‘spouse.'” said the judges. “The declaration is also sought to extend the benefit of the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act to the petitioners who are in a long-term, stable same-sex relationship.”
The judges, as an alternative noted the petition seeks an interpretation of the term “spouse” in Section 56(2)(x) that would extend the exemption to same-sex couples, whom the petitioners argue are in the same position as heterosexual couples presumed to be in a marriage.
The case is scheduled for hearing on Sept. 18, when the attorney general and the Indian government are expected to file their responses.
“Johar judgment of Sept. 6, 2018 gave us the right to love without fear,” said Harish Iyer, a prominent LGBTQ activist in India. “But what good is love if Lady Justice stays blindfolded to our families of choice — beyond gender boxes, beyond marriage certificates.”
Speaking to the Washington Blade, Iyer said the community’s legal journey has been a lifeline rather than a mere timeline, citing milestones such as the Naz Foundation ruling on decriminalization, the NALSA judgment on transgender rights, the Supreme Court’s decision in Navtej Singh Johar, and the affirmation in Puttaswamy that privacy is intrinsic to dignity.
He stressed each ruling represented a moment of recognition and argued that rights for queer people are not passively granted but continuously upheld in courtrooms, newsrooms, boardrooms, and ballot boxes, requiring constant defense.
“Our fight for our rights is our lifelong resistance,” said Iyer. “Rights are not a given, they are a continuous defense — against erasure, against silence, against the comfort of forgetting. The Puttaswamy judgment reminded us that privacy is not a privilege, but a constitutional promise; and in that promise lives the freedom to love, to live, and to be.”
In response to a question about the impact on the community, Iyer told the Blade the struggle remains exhausting, with constant pressure weighing on both mental health and financial stability. At the same time, he noted a shift, with more voices speaking up and more people joining the fight. Iyer emphasized the Pride flag has been firmly raised and will not be lowered, underscoring the community’s resolve not to back down.
The Supreme Court, in its 2023 ruling that declined to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples, urged the government to create a committee to examine what measures could be taken to extend economic benefits currently available only to heterosexual couples. The court recommended the panel consider access to entitlements — joint bank accounts, pensions, succession rights, and health insurance — so queer couples are not excluded solely because their relationships lack legal recognition.
Ankit Bhupatani, a global DEI leader and LGBTQ activist, said the petition before the Bombay High Court is not only about taxation; but also about dignity, equality, and the need to dismantle systemic discrimination. He noted that this represents precisely the kind of legislative gap the Supreme Court had pointed out during the marriage equality hearing — heterosexual couples are protected while queer couples remain vulnerable.
“This reflects the gap between constitutional morality and statutory reforms. While the Supreme Court in Navtej Johar (2018) declared that LGBTQ persons are equal citizens, and in the marriage equality case acknowledged our hardships, the implementation of those declarations depends on proactive steps by the legislature and the executive. Unfortunately, successive governments have failed to do this work,” said Bhupatani. “It is unfair and exhausting for the community to repeatedly prove our humanity in courts just to access basic rights that heterosexual couples take for granted. Equality cannot be piecemeal; it must be comprehensive.”
Bhupatani further said that the impact is two-fold: emotional and material.
On the one hand, such discriminatory laws send a message that same-sex love is “less than,” that same-sex relationships are legally invisible. This, he said, takes a toll on mental health and reinforces stigma in society. On the other hand, the financial burden is very real, as many queer couples face unfair taxation, denial of joint benefits, and lack of recognition in matters of property, pensions, and inheritance.
“These are not abstract issues, they affect whether couples can plan their future together, buy a home, or provide for one another in old age,” said Bhupatani. “When the law penalizes queer families, it perpetuates inequality and economic hardship. This case, therefore, is not just about taxes, it is about affirming that queer Indians deserve the same dignity, rights, and protections as anyone else under the constitution.”
India
India’s first transgender healthcare clinic reopens
Mitr Clinic closed after losing USAID funding
A U.S. Agency for International Development funding freeze in January forced the closure of India’s Mitr Clinic, the country’s first transgender healthcare facility, disrupting critical services for a vulnerable population.
Six months later, the clinic has reopened as Sabrang Clinic, reviving access to essential care for the transgender community.
Major Indian corporations, including some of the nation’s largest multinationals, stepped up with substantial financial support. Their backing has enabled Sabrang Clinic to resume its mission of delivering specialized, stigma-free medical services.
The former Mitr Clinic on May 2 reopened as the Sabrang Clinic. YR Gaitonde Center for AIDS Research and Education, an HIV/AIDS service organization, manages the facility.
The Sabrang Clinic sparked controversy in the U.S. when U.S. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) in February denounced its USAID funding, arguing that American taxpayer dollars should not support trans healthcare initiatives abroad. President Donald Trump amplified the criticism, labeling the agency’s spending on such programs as “wasteful” and aligning with his administration’s broader push to curb federal support for gender-affirming care. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt further fueled the debate, citing the clinic’s funding as part of a pattern of USAID’s “radical” expenditures, while House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) echoed the sentiment, decrying similar international projects as misaligned with American priorities.
Elon Musk, who until May led the Department of Government Efficiency, added to the controversy surrounding the clinic.
“That’s what American tax dollars were funding,” he said in a Feb. 28 X post.
His remark, made before his departure from the Trump-Vance administration, spotlighted the clinic’s USAID support, intensifying debates over its role in delivering trans healthcare in India.
The Washington Blade on Feb. 27 detailed how the USAID funding freeze crippled Mitr Clinic’s operations, spotlighting the broader fallout for South Asian LGBTQ organizations.
The Blade noted the clinic, a vital resource for trans healthcare in India, faced abrupt closure alongside groups in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, as the freeze slashed support for programs addressing HIV/AIDS, mental health, and gender-based violence, leaving thousands without access to essential services.
The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and USAID in 2021 launched Program ACCELERATE, spearheaded by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, to establish Mitr Clinic in Hyderabad in Telangana State. As India’s first comprehensive healthcare center for the trans community, the facility offered tailored medical services, including HIV/AIDS treatment and mental health support, filling a critical gap in the region’s healthcare landscape.
Sabrang Clinic serves a critical role for India’s estimated one million trans people, a population facing a disproportionate HIV/AIDS burden.
A 2019 Reuters report noted a 3.1 percent HIV prevalence among trans people, translating to roughly 31,000 individuals living with the virus, compared to the national adult rate of 0.26 percent. Similarly, a 2021 UNAIDS report cited a 3.8 percent prevalence, suggesting approximately 38,000 trans people with HIV/AIDS.
Internal reports indicate the clinic since it opened in 2021 has served more than 3,000 patients. It has become a model of community-led care that fosters trust and addresses the unique health needs of trans people in Hyderabad.
When USAID funding cuts forced Sabrang Clinic’s closure, scores of people and LGBTQ community members in Hyderabad were left without access to reliable, stigma-free healthcare. Undaunted, the clinic’s trans-led team pivoted to virtual consultations and medication delivery, sustaining critical support for patients until corporate funding revived operations.
Tata Trusts, a philanthropic arm of India’s Tata conglomerate, in April pledged to fund the clinic for three years.
The Hindu, a leading Indian English-language newspaper, reported the trust committed approximately $18 per person a year to sustain the clinic’s operations. This contrasts with the earlier USAID program, which had provided about $23 per person each year.
Tata Trusts covers the salaries of Sabrang Clinic’s core medical staff, while its leadership positions are jointly funded by Tata and the clinic’s parent organization. The clinic is now pursuing partnerships with additional donors to expand its trans-focused healthcare services.
“We are elated to continue this service, as we have always believed that sexual minorities deserve respect and their right to self-expression,” said YRGCARE Chief Operating Officer A.K. Srikrishnan. “That’s why we launched Mitr Clinic under Project ACCELERATE in 2021, and it operated until January 2025. The Trump administration’s USAID funding withdrawal forced a shutdown, but we have no comment on that. Fortunately, with great vigor, we secured support from Tata Trusts to sustain Sabrang Clinic. The name change to Sabrang, also called ‘Help for All,’ was simply to reposition the brand, with no deeper logic attached.”
Srikrishnan told the Blade that YRGCARE will aim to raise additional crowdfunding and support if the current funding proves insufficient to maintain the same level of services at the clinic. Srikrishnan also thanked Tata Trusts for its support.
“We want to expand it throughout the country given the choice,” said Srikrishnan. “If someone were to tell us, ‘Can you run it across the country?’ we would certainly love to do it.”
“Sexual minorities are a reality, and however much someone wishes them away, they exist and need to exist with the respect and rights they deserve,” added Srikrishnan. “We do not differentiate between local and foreign contributions; when we needed it most, Tata Trusts stepped in and helped. So we are certainly grateful to them.”
India
Anaya Bangar challenges ban on trans women in female cricket teams
Former Indian cricketer Sanjay Bangar’s daughter has received support
Anaya Bangar, the daughter of former Indian cricketer Sanjay Bangar, has partnered with the Manchester Metropolitan University Institute of Sport in the U.K. to assess her physiological profile following her gender-affirming surgery and undergoing hormone replacement therapy.
From January to March 2025, the 23-year-old underwent an eight-week research project that measured her glucose levels, oxygen uptake, muscle mass, strength, and endurance after extensive training.
The results, shared via Instagram, revealed her metrics align with those of cisgender female athletes, positioning her as eligible for women’s cricket under current scientific standards. Bangar’s findings challenge the International Cricket Council’s 2023 ban on transgender athletes in women’s cricket, prompting her to call for a science-based dialogue with the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the ICC to reform policies for trans inclusion.
“I am talking with scientific evidence in my hand,” Bangar said in an interview posted to her Instagram page. “So, I hope, this makes an impact and I will be hoping to BCCI and ICC talking with me and discussing this further.”
On Nov. 21, 2023, the ICC enacted a controversial policy barring trans women from international women’s cricket. Finalized after a board meeting in Ahmedabad, India, the regulation prohibits any trans player who has experienced male puberty from competing, irrespective of gender-affirming surgery or hormone therapy. Developed through a 9-month consultation led by the ICC’s Medical Advisory Committee, the rule aims to safeguard the “integrity, safety, and fairness” of women’s cricket but has drawn criticism for excluding athletes like Canada’s Danielle McGahey, the first trans woman to play internationally. The policy, which allows domestic boards to set their own rules, is slated for review by November 2025.
Bangar shared a document on social media verifying her participation in a physiological study at the Manchester Metropolitan University Institute of Sport, conducted from Jan. 20 to March 3, 2025, focused on cricket performance. The report confirmed that her vital metrics — including hemoglobin, blood glucose, peak power, and mean power — aligned with those of cisgender female athletes. Initially, her fasting blood glucose measured 6.1 mmol/L, slightly above the typical non-diabetic range of 4.0–5.9 mmol/L, but subsequent tests showed it normalized, reinforcing the study’s findings that her physical profile meets female athletic standards.
“I am submitting this to the BCCI and ICC, with full transparency and hope,” said Bangar. “My only intention is to start a conversation based on facts not fear. To build space, not divide it.”
In a letter to the BCCI and the ICC, Bangar emphasized her test results from the Manchester Metropolitan University study. She explained that the research aimed to assess how hormone therapy had influenced her strength, stamina, hemoglobin, glucose levels, and overall performance, benchmarked directly against cisgender female athletic standards.
Bangar’s letter to the BCCI and the ICC clarified the Manchester study was not intended as a political statement but as a catalyst for a science-driven dialogue on fairness and inclusion in cricket. She emphasized the importance of prioritizing empirical data over assumptions to shape equitable policies for trans athletes in the sport.
Bangar urged the BCCI, the world’s most influential cricket authority, to initiate a formal dialogue on trans women’s inclusion in women’s cricket, rooted in medical science, performance metrics, and ethical fairness. She called for the exploration of eligibility pathways based on sport-specific criteria, such as hemoglobin thresholds, testosterone suppression timelines, and standardized performance testing. Additionally, she advocated for collaboration with experts, athletes, and legal advisors to develop policies that balance inclusivity with competitive integrity.
“I am releasing my report and story publicly not for sympathy, but for truth. Because inclusion does not mean ignoring fairness, it means measuring it, transparently and responsibly,” said Bangar in a letter to the BCCI. “I would deeply appreciate the opportunity to meet with you or a representative of the BCCI or ICC to present my findings, discuss possible policy pathways, and work towards a future where every athlete is evaluated based on real data, not outdated perceptions.”
Before her transition, Bangar competed for Islam Gymkhana in Mumbai and Hinckley Cricket Club in the U.K., showcasing her talent in domestic cricket circuits. Her father, Sanjay Bangar, was a dependable all-rounder for the Indian national cricket team from 2001 to 2004, playing 12 test matches and 15 One Day Internationals. He later served as a batting coach for the Indian team from 2014 to 2019, contributing to its strategic development.
Cricket in India is a cultural phenomenon, commanding a fanbase of more than 1 billion, with more than 80 percent of global cricket viewership originating from the country.
The International Cricket Council, the sport’s governing body, oversees 12 full member nations and more than 90 associate members, with the U.S. recently gaining associate member status in 2019 and co-hosting the 2024 ICC Men’s T20 World Cup. The BCCI generated approximately $2.25 billion in revenue in the 2023–24 financial year, primarily from the Indian Premier League, bilateral series, and ICC revenue sharing. The ICC earns over $3 billion from media rights in India alone for the 2024–27 cycle, contributing nearly 90 percent of its global media rights revenue, with the BCCI receiving 38.5 percent of the ICC’s annual earnings, approximately $231 million per year.
Women’s cricket in India enjoys a growing fanbase, with over 300 million viewers for the Women’s Premier League in 2024, making it a significant driver of the sport’s global popularity. The International Cricket Council oversees women’s cricket in 12 full member nations and over 90 associate members, with the U.S. fielding a women’s team since gaining associate status in 2019 and competing in ICC events like the 2024 Women’s T20 World Cup qualifiers. The BCCI invests heavily in women’s cricket, allocating approximately $60 million annually to the WPL and domestic programs in 2024–25, while contributing to the ICC’s $20 million budget for women’s cricket development globally. India’s media market for women’s cricket, including WPL broadcasting rights, generated $120 million in 2024, accounting for over 50 percent of the ICC’s women’s cricket media revenue.
“As a woman, I feel when someone says that they are women, then they are, be trans or cis. A trans woman is definitely the same as a cis woman emotionally and in vitals, and specially, when someone is on hormone replacement therapy. Stopping Anaya Bangar from playing is discrimination and violation of her rights. It is really sad and painful that every trans woman need to fight and prove their identity everywhere,” said Indrani Chakraborty, an LGBTQ rights activist and a mother of a trans woman. “If ICC and BCCI is stopping her from playing for being transgender, then I will say this to be their lack of awareness and of course the social mindsets which deny acceptance.”
Chakraborty told the Blade that Bangar is an asset, no matter what. She said that the women’s cricket team will only benefit by participation, but the discriminating policies are the hindrance.
“Actually the transgender community face such discrimination in every sphere. In spite of being potent, they face rejection. This is highly inhuman. These attitudes is regressive and will never let to prosper. Are we really in 2025?,” said Chakraborty. “We, our mindset and the society are the issues. We, as a whole, need to get aware and have to come together for getting justice for Anaya. If today, we remain silent, the entire community will be oppressed. Proper knowledge of gender issues need to be understood.”
The BCCI and the International Cricket Council have not responded to the Blade’s repeated requests for comment.
-
Movies5 days agoIn solid ‘Nuremberg,’ the Nazis are still the bad guys
-
Books5 days agoNew book highlights long history of LGBTQ oppression
-
Theater4 days agoGay, straight men bond over finances, single fatherhood in Mosaic show
-
The White House3 days agoEXCLUSIVE: Garcia, Markey reintroduce bill to require US promotes LGBTQ rights abroad
