Connect with us

India

Court asks Indian government to clarify stance on non-consensual sexual offenses

Colonial-era sodomy law struck down in landmark 2018 ruling

Published

on

Gantavya Gulati (Photo courtesy Gantavya Gulati)

The Delhi High Court on Aug. 13 directed the Indian government to clarify its stance on non-consensual sexual offenses against LGBTQ people and men under the country’s revised penal code. The court’s order has spotlighted the gaps in the legal framework, urging the government to address the protection of these vulnerable groups within the new law.

The Indian LGBTQ community on Sept. 6, 2018, celebrated one of its most significant legal victories when the Supreme Court struck down Section 377 of the country’s colonial-era penal code that criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations. The Supreme Court invalidated the law for consensual acts, but it retained provisions that concern non-consensual sex to protect transgender people and other vulnerable communities.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which revised the existing penal code, took effect on July 1 and entirely omits the law.

“Where is that provision? There is no provision at all,” asked the court. “There has to be something. The question is that if it is not there, then is it an offense? If an offense is not there and if it is obliterated, then it is not an offense.”

The petitioner who approached the Delhi High Court said the omission of protections in the new law could have unforeseen consequences. The petitioner, lawyer Gantavya Gulati, argued that even after the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling that decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations, Section 377 continued to provide crucial protection to men and LGBTQ people from non-consensual sexual acts.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, in its 2023 report on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, noted that omitting Section 377 would result in the absence of penalties for non-consensual sexual offenses against men and trans people, and for acts of bestiality. The committee, therefore, recommended including Section 377 in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The Supreme Court in its 2018 ruling referred to the portions of Section 377 that criminalized consensual sex as “irrational, indefensible, and manifestly arbitrary.” The Supreme Court at the time emphasized authorities used Section 377 as a weapon to harass LGBTQ people, leading to widespread discrimination.

“Persons who are homosexuals have a fundamental right to live with dignity,” said the Supreme Court. “We further declare that such groups (LGBTQ) are entitled to the protection of equal laws, and are entitled to be treated in society as human beings without any stigma being attached to any of them. We further direct that Section 377, insofar as it criminalizes homosexual sex and transgender sex between consenting adults, is unconstitutional.”

Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on Aug. 12 led a bench of justices who heard the case that Gulati brought.

The petitioner argued that “the absence of Section 377 of the Indian penal code poses a threat to every individual, but especially to LGBTQ persons.” The petitioner also highlighted that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita does not include any protections for a man who is sexually assaulted by another man.

The Indian government contended the court could not compel parliament to enact a specific provision, even in the presence of a legal anomaly. The government’s counsel emphasized a motion had already been submitted, highlighting this issue to the national government, and it is currently under consideration. The High Court, led by Manmohan, in response directed the government to return on Aug. 28 to clarify its position on non-consensual sexual offenses in light of Section 377’s omission.

The remnants of Section 377 after the 2018 judgment were gender-neutral, offering protection regardless of gender. When the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita came into effect, however, the government completely omitted this provision from the new law. It failed to introduce an alternative to protect male rape victims and trans people. Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead defines rape in a highly gendered manner: As an act where a man’s penis penetrates a woman’s vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus, or compels her to do so with him or another person. This definition narrows the scope of the law, failing to provide adequate protection for LGBTQ individuals.

A report the Guardian published in 2018 found 71 percent of men respondents reported being abused, yet 84.9 percent of them never disclosed their experiences to anyone. The report highlighted the primary reasons for this silence were shame (55.6 percent), followed by confusion (50.9 percent), fear (43.5 percent), and guilt (28.7 percent). The findings shed light on the profound psychological barriers that prevent male survivors from seeking help or sharing their stories.

Gulati recently spoke to the Washington Blade about the case.

He said his concern is the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in its current form primarily frames rape as an act committed by a man against a woman. This narrow definition, he argued, fails to encompass the full spectrum of sexual abuse endured by trans people and men, particularly those within the LGBTQ community.

Gulati emphasized that while there are existing laws that address various forms of sexual violence, they often fall short in specifically protecting these marginalized groups in the way that is urgently needed. He underscored this significant omission within the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita indicates a pressing need for reform. Gulati suggested the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita must be thoughtfully revised and expanded to ensure that every person, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, is afforded the protection they deserve from sexual abuse.

“Whether Parliament’s decision was deliberate or not, the removal of Section 377 provision has raised concerns,” Gulati told the Blade. “Section 377 of the Indian penal code covered important issues, like bestiality and other non-consensual acts, that are not clearly addressed in the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). By leaving out this provision, the law may no longer provide the same level of protection against these acts. It’s a decision that has significant consequences, especially for those who are vulnerable.”

He also said the roles of the courts and parliament are different in a democracy.

The courts’ job is to interpret the law and make sure it is applied fairly, while parliament is responsible for creating and changing laws. Gulati said courts can point out when a law is missing or needs improvement, but they cannot force parliament to make a specific law. Gulati said that the government’s position reflects this balance of power, acknowledging only elected representatives have the authority to make laws.

Sudhanshu Latad, the dedicated advocacy manager at Humsafar Trust, an organization at the forefront of promoting LGBTQ rights in India, also spoke with the Blade.

Latad reflected on the crucial role the judiciary has historically played in bridging gaps within existing legal frameworks, particularly when they fall short of safeguarding specific groups or subgroups. Latad said the Delhi High Court’s decision to hear the Section 377 case is emblematic of this judicial intervention.

“We hope that the Honorable Delhi High Court orders the parliament to create a provision to separately address protection of transgender persons and LGBTQ+ community or reinstitute Section 377 until such provisions are made separately in BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita),” said Latad. “Section 63 of BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) primarily presents itself to be written with a heteronormative perspective.”

“While if read with the NALSA vs Union of India judgment 2014, trans women may be able to seek recourse under this, there is an element of ambiguity for assigned males at birth nonbinary persons,” he added. “It does though take into consideration any person raping a woman as it refers to objects being used for the purpose of rape, which may be the case in an instance of woman or nonbinary persons raping a woman.”

Latad told the Washington Blade the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s introduction is a pivotal point of transformation for the Indian legal system and strengthening it to a position to be able to govern and protect a country with the highest population in the world may be a strenuous affair. He said rape and other sensitive topics may need longer discussions.

“Hence, I feel this is a great opportunity — a clean slate — to introduce a robust gender-neutral law against rape,” said Latad. “I am hopeful that parliament will view this the same way and will take into consideration the recommendations made by the Standing Committee. If they do not retain Section 377 to protect consent, I hope they introduce something equivalent that protects every citizen of the country from rape.”

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. 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

India

Tax equity case filed in Bombay High Court

Same-sex couple challenging India’s Income Tax Act

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

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.”

Continue Reading

India

India’s first transgender healthcare clinic reopens

Mitr Clinic closed after losing USAID funding

Published

on

(Photo by Rahul Sapra via Bigstock)

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.”

Continue Reading

India

Anaya Bangar challenges ban on trans women in female cricket teams

Former Indian cricketer Sanjay Bangar’s daughter has received support

Published

on

Anaya Bangar (Photo courtesy of Anaya Bangar's Instagram page)

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.

Continue Reading

Popular