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.
India
Indian political parties for the first time include LGBTQ rights in election platforms
Voters will begin to cast ballots on April 19
The world’s largest democratic exercise will begin in India on April 19 as citizens begin to cast their votes in the country’s election.
This year’s election is different because national level political parties for the first time are promising to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples as part of their election platforms.
The Indian National Congress, one of India’s oldest political parties, promised after wide consultation that it would introduce a bill that would recognize civil unions between couples who are part of the LGBTQ community. The party, which has governed India for the majority of the period since independence from the U.K. in 1947, has refrained from taking a stance on laws that include Section 377, which criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations.
Then-Health Minister Gulam Nabi Azad in 2011 when the INC was in power said homosexuality is a disease. He made the controversial comment while speaking at an HIV/AIDS conference in New Delhi, the Indian capital.
“Unfortunately, this disease has come to our country too,” said Azad. “Where a man has sex with another man, which is completely unnatural and should not happen but does.”
When the Delhi High Court was hearing the Naz Foundation case, the Home Affairs Ministry opposed the striking down of Section 377 based on its belief that homosexuality cannot be morally condoned. The INC never struck down Section 377, which criminalized homosexuality, in parliament.
A 5-judge panel on the Supreme Court on Sept. 6, 2018, decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) on April 4 unveiled its platform with a range of socialist commitments, including support for LGBTQ rights. Among these pledges is to amend the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 to address community concerns and ensure legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples akin to marriage.
The platform also outlined plans to introduce a bill similar to the Special Marriage Act of 1954, which allows partners to be listed as dependents and facilitating like inheritance, alimony in the event of divorce and other issues. The party further pledged to enact a comprehensive anti-discriminatory bill that would include LGBTQ people, ensure quotas in educational institutions and implement horizontal reservations in employment.
Addressing the issue of crimes against LGBTQ people, the platform promised to treat such offenses on par with crimes against heterosexuals. The platform also calls for tackling bullying, violence and harassment of gender non-conforming and LGBTQ people in educational settings, enforcing anti-hazing policies and combating hazing based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The platform further touched issues related to transition and informed consent.
The Special Marriage Act of 1954 is a law that provides for civil unions among Indians and Indian nationals who live abroad, regardless of the religion or faith followed by either party. This law enables people from two different religious backgrounds to enter into marriage. Parliament in 2019 passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act that extended rights to trans people.
Brinda Karat, a former member of the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Indian Parliament, and leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), spoke with the Washington Blade and said the current government has homophobic ideas that are not acceptable to the party.
The ruling government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi is striving to secure more than 400 parliament seats in the upcoming election, aiming for a substantial majority.
Various polls conducted by Indian news organizations indicate a probable victory for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. In response to the BJP’s dominance, Congress and several national and regional parties have joined forces as the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance.
This alliance comprises 26 opposition political parties. Despite its formation, however, there is no clear coalition strategy in place and only two parties have included LGBTQ-specific policies in their election platforms.
The Blade reached out to Congress’ spokesperson for comment, but has not received a response. The BJP also did not respond to a request for comment.
The party has yet to release its election platform.
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 [email protected]. He is on Twitter at @mohitkopinion.
India
New Indian immigration law excludes LGBTQ people
Government to offer fast-track citizenship to nationals from neighboring countries
The Indian government on March 11 implemented a law that allows undocumented people who entered the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and other neighboring countries before Dec. 31, 2014, to receive fast-track citizenship.
Parliament in 2019 passed the Citizenship Amendment Act, which provides citizenship to undocumented people who are minorities — mainly because they are Hindu, Jain, Sikhs, Buddhist, Parsi and Christian — who face persecution in their countries of origin. The rule that took effect this month does not include LGBTQ people.
LGBTQ Pakistanis face discrimination based on gender identity, violence, homicide, threats and hate speech, discrimination in accessing employment and access to housing. Lesbians, in particular, face challenges that include sexual harassment, violence and a greater chance of losing housing and jobs if sexual orientation is revealed.
According to the Human Rights Watch report in 2022, Afghanistan’s gender minorities have faced grave threats to their safety and lives under the Taliban regime. Even before the Taliban took over the country, former President Ashraf Ghani passed a law that criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relationships.
According to the Taliban’s statement given to the Built, a German tabloid, before the fall of Kabul, the country’s capital, in 2021, gay people would be punished in two ways, either by stoning or by standing behind a wall that will fall on them.
A 2016 Human Rights Watch from 2016 notes the killings of several LGBTQ activists and illegal arrests by police in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh’s National Human Rights Commission in 2013 asked the government to protect the LGBTQ community from discrimination. The commission acknowledged police physically and sexually assault LGBTQ people, and make arbitrary arrests based on an individual’s appearance.
Although India’s CAA does not fast-track citizenship for new arrivals but sticks to the cut-off date of December 2014; there are no records of any LGBTQ Muslims coming from Pakistan, Afghanistan or Bangladesh to India.
The Indian Home Affairs Ministry says the applicant must provide six types of documents and specify the “date of entry” in India.
“These rules will now enable minorities persecuted on religious grounds in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan to acquire citizenship in our nation,” Union Home Minister Amit Shah said in an X post on March 11. “With this notification PM (Prime Minister) Shri Narendra Modi has delivered on another commitment and realized the promise of the makers of our constitution to the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians living in those countries.”
More than 1,000 members of the LGBTQ community protested against the law in New Delhi, India’s capital, after Parliament passed it in 2019. Tejasvi Surya, an MP from Bengaluru and a member of the ruling party, said those who are protesting against the CAA, especially LGBTQ members want Pakistani Muslims to come into India.
“Let me assure all of you, you’re seriously misplaced. There is no iota of idea or freedom or recognition of LGBTQ rights in Pakistan,” said Surya. “You are proudly going about your LGBTQ rights and living a dignified existence here and fighting for a more dignified life in India because we are not Pakistan. So, if you let all the Muslims of Pakistan to come into India, then there will be no questions of LGBTQ rights in India.”
The applicant can apply for citizenship in India through an online portal with listed documents that include birth certificates, tenancy records, identity papers and any license, school, or educational certificate issued by a government authority in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The applicant needs to produce an eligibility certificate issued by a reputable community institution that confirms they belong to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian community and remains a member of it.
Rani Patel, an activist, and founder of Aarohan, a nonprofit organization that works with transgender Indians, said the LGBTQ community is always neglected.
“Every country has a set of rules and regulations,” said Patel. “We cannot encroach on other’s area. We can take care of our LGBTQ community. We cannot say that we can take your LGBTQ people. We have a huge population, and this is the government’s call.”
Guru Prasad Mohanty, an LGBTQ rights activist in Uttarakhand, told the Washington Blade that the Indian government has always excluded the LGBTQ community.
“The LGBTQ community in India has been left out in every sector and in every form, so I am not surprised that they left the community,” said Mohanty. “I would have been happy, not only me but all the members of the community, if LGBTQ community has been included in this.”
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 [email protected]. He is on Twitter at @mohitkopinion.
India
India broadcast authority asks TV station to delete video deemed offensive to LGBTQ community
Activist Indrajeet Ghorpad filed complaint
India’s News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority on Feb. 28 asked a television station to delete a video that contained objectionable remarks against the LGBTQ community.
The India Today video report’s headline was “Nudity sparks outrage at USA Pride parades: How India’s LGBTQ+ lead responsibly.” The clip reportedly contained factual inaccuracies, spread fear and demonized the LGBTQ community.
NBDSA has asked India Today to remove all hyperlinks to the video from every one of its platforms. The regulatory agency has issued guidelines for broadcasters about the LGBTQ community and asked to circulate it among all its editors and members. The broadcasting authority announced the directives after hearing a complaint that Indrajeet Ghorpad, an LGBTQ rights activist, filed.
Ghorpad said the program did not comply with the principles of “accuracy, neutrality, objectivity, good taste, decency and others.” Ghorpad also said it portrayed Pride parades in the U.S. in a negative light and unfavorably compared them with India’s LGBTQ community.
The NBDSA had received several complaints on the community’s portrayal. It issued five guidelines to sensitize and bring objectivity when covering the LGBTQ community in India, apart from the existing code of ethics and broadcasting standards.
The NBDSA on March 1 issued guidelines on how to report on issues faced by the LGBTQ community with accuracy, objectivity and sensitivity, and further said that non-sensitive and inaccurate reporting regarding the community has serious social repercussions.
The guidelines say “reporting should not sensationalize or create panic, distress or undue fear among viewers.” They also state broadcasters must avoid broadcasting any news that sensationalizes the issues related to the LGBTQ community, perpetuates stereotypes or creates fear in respect of the community.
The recommendations say broadcasters should refrain from using any expression or slur that may be construed as “hate speech” against the LGBTQ community. They also note broadcasters while covering any issue concerning the LGBTQ community must ensure their reporting does not promote homophobia or transphobia, or negative stereotypes about the LGBTQ community.
The guidelines say broadcasters must respect the privacy of LGBTQ people and not disclose personal information, including gender identity or sexual orientation of a person without their consent. The guidelines further state broadcasters should use inclusive and gender-neutral language, and respect the individuals’ preferred pronouns and names. Broadcasters, according to the guidelines, must strive for diverse representation in their coverage of the LGBTQ community and ensure voices from different segments of the LGBTQ community are provided a platform to express their views.
The incident is not a first Indian media.
TV9 Telugu, a Telugu language television station, in 2011 did a sting operation on LGBTQ members of a gay dating site, over which the news channel faced the community’s wrath in Mumbai, India’s financial capital. The channel at that time broadcasted the operation all over the country and released profiles and pictures of the site’s users.
The LGBTQ community protested outside the channel’s office in Mumbai by wearing condoms on their middle fingers.
NBDSA in April 2022 sanctioned TV9 Telugu, and Sakshi TV, another Telugu-language 24-hour news channel, for sensationalizing a police raid in Hyderabad after neighbors complained of loud noise. The two channels broadcasted visuals of the party and individuals attending it, violating privacy and highlighting their sexual orientation without their consent.
Negha Shahin, a transgender Indian actress, told the Washington Blade that social media today has become an unsafe, toxic and hate-spreading tool with regards to trans and queer people.
“Mocking LGBTQIA+ folks is becoming a new trend. Content creators are creating content against queer folks, dangerous things are getting attention and triggering homophobia and transphobia,” said Shahin. “Meanwhile TV media like India Today is playing major part and considered as responsible news network. If they did not follow the guidelines then how will the society will follow? Journalists, politicians, actors, police, lawyers whoever addressing issues related to (the) minority community in India, should mind the glossary. They cannot be transphobic or homophobic. They cannot oppress, misgender, following stereotypes and creating false statement or news in the media.”
Shahin said news channels in India that do not following the guidelines are showing their hatred against the LGBTQ community. She said these incidents remind everyone that uprooting stereotypes and homophobia from society in every form is important.
Harish Iyer, a prominent equal rights activist in India, told the Blade that accepting different sexuality is not a Western or Indian concept, but rather a scientific one that cuts across geographies and sex.
“If channels are broadcasting this, they are not doing against gender or sexuality but against science and humanity,” said Iyer. “More than expunging and deleting the video, the corrective actions like watchdogs will ensure corrective actions are required. The guidelines are in sync with what the Supreme Court of India and the Constitution of India stand for. With a name like India Today, they stand against the very tenet of Indianism which is enshrined in the constitution that provides equal opportunity and equal protection of the law against any discrimination regardless of gender and sexuality, so I think, India Today, should not have the India in their name because that goes against the tenet of Indian constitution and the Supreme Court’s verdict as well. There should be something mandatory for the news channels, and not just the guidelines.”
India Today did not respond to the Blade’s multiple requests for comment.
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 [email protected]. He is on Twitter at @mohitkopinion.
Malcolm Kenyatta could become the first LGBTQ statewide elected official in Pa.
Bowser budget proposal calls for $5.25 million for 2025 World Pride
White House debuts action plan targeting pollutants in drinking water
Health care for Marylanders with HIV is facing huge cuts this summer
Maine governor signs transgender, abortion sanctuary bill into law
Daniel Zamudio murderer’s parole request denied
State Department releases annual human rights report
‘Amm(i)gone’ explores family, queerness, and faith
Joe Vogel campaign holds ‘Big Gay Canvass Kickoff’
