Legal Recognition of LGBTQIA+: a Tussle between Popular Morality and Constitutional Morality

  • Showkat Ahmad Wani GLS University
Keywords: Supreme Court, Social Inclusion, LGBTQIA , Marriage Equality, Right To Live, Human Rights

Abstract

The Apex Judicature of the nation has held the prism of human rights high ever since 2009, but the fight for social acceptance seems never-ending. The question is whether society is understanding or accepting “them” to be one of them? The rights of the non-conformists are being referred to as ‘an urban elite trend’, and their distress calls are blatantly ignored by society and even the government. The repeated recognition of their rights by the Supreme Court is hurdling a cultural revolution that society is not ready to stand. This lesser treatment to the LGBTQIA++ necessitates society and not just the protector of unpopular citizens to walk a full mile.
Right to live with dignity is a recognised fundamental right to every citizen of this nation, which guarantees enjoyment of more than the bare minimum of life. The progressive journey of Supreme Court raises a storm betwixt popular morality and constitutional morality. One hopes that the Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty case, questioning the established narrative of only man and woman’s association as a family unit, becomes instrumental to illuminate as to what many numbers of legislation are inclusive of the new age, if not a precursor to legislative amendments. The primary focus of the authors is to interpret the present Indian legislations to understand the support it furthers to the LGBTQIA++ community along with analysing the stance of other jurisdictions on the same. The paper advances to reveal the impact of their intersecting identities on the pre-existing lack of legal recognition and social stigma of the community notwithstanding the rights accorded by the courts. Finally, the authors make non-illusory recommendation to the deplorable discrimination, extreme abhorrence and non-inclusivity by focusing on constitutional idealism.

References

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 791.
The Indian Penal Code, § 377, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860.
CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-hindi/recognition (last visited on May 17, 2023).
Astha and Aryan, Is Decriminalisation of Homosexuality Enough, SCC Online (May 18, 2023, 9:29 PM), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/10/31/is-decriminalisation-of-homosexuality-enough/
The Special Marriage Act, No. 43 Acts of Parliament, 1954 and the Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 Acts of Parliament, 1955.
Vanita, Ruth, Same-Sex Weddings, Hindu Traditions and Modern India, 91 Feminist Review 47, (2009).
Sanjana Ray, Indian Culture Does Recognise Homosexuality Let Us Count the Ways, The Quint, (May 18, 2023, 9:49 PM), https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/homosexuality-rss-ancient-indian-culture-section-377.
Vanita, Ruth supra note 6.
VĀTSYĀYANA, THE KAMASUTRA, BENARES: JAI KRISHNA-DAS-HARIDAS GUPTA, 89 (1929).
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of rights) Act, No. 40, Acts of Parliament, § 2(k).
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of rights) Act, No. 40, Acts of Parliament, § 6.
Abhishek Goyal, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019: Enduring Struggle for Gender Rights Recognition, SCC Online, (May 18, 2023, 9:34 PM) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/06/25/transgender-persons-protection-of-rights-act-2019-enduring-struggle-for-gender-rights-recognition/
Abhimanini Sawhney and Sara Grover, The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2019 Divergent Interpretations and Subsequent Policy Implications 6.1 IJLPP (2019).
Frances Perraudin, Survey Finds 70 per cent of LGBT People Sexually Harassed at Work, THE GUARDIAN, (May 17, 2019, 10.55 PM) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/17/survey-finds-70-of-lgbt-people-sexually-harassed-at-work
World Bank, THE ECONOMIC COST OF STIGMA AND THE EXCLUSION OF LGBT PEOPLE: A CASE STUDY OF INDIA (2014), 94040 (Oct. 2014).
Dr. Manika Kamthan, Need for Inclusion of LGBTQIA+ under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, SCC Online (Jul. 8, 2022) available at https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/07/08/need-for-inclusion-of-lgbtqia-under-the-sexual-harassment-of-women-at-workplace-prevention-prohibition-and-redressal-act-2013/ (last visited on 17 May, 2023).
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 2013.
Union of India v. Mudrika Singh, 2021 SCC Online SC 1173 (India).
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 S. 2(a).
Dr. Manika Kamthan, supra note 18.
Justice J.S. Verma, Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law (2013) (May 18, 2023, 10:29 PM) https://adrindia.org/sites/default/files/Justice_Verma_Amendmenttocriminallaw_Jan2013.pdf
Yashdeep Chalal and Samridhi Sharma, Decriminalizing the Act: Protecting Individuals as Kings Without Sceptre to Rule, 9.1, NLIU LR (2020).
Supriyo@ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
The Special Marriage Act, § 2 (b), No. 43 Acts of Parliament, 1954.
Live Law, Same Sex Marriage- Supreme Court Hearing- LIVE, YOUTUBE, (May 30, 2023, 10:00 PM) available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU38559_YnY&t=5672s.
Income Tax Act, § 56, No. 43, Acts of Parliament,1961.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, § 57(2), No. 2, Acts of Parliament,2015.
supra Note 27.
The Special Marriage Act, § 4, No. 43 Acts of Parliament, 1954.
The Special Marriage Act, § 23, No. 43 Acts of Parliament, 1954.
The Special Marriage Act, § 27, No. 43 Acts of Parliament, 1954.
Lawrence et al v. Texas, 2003 SCC OnLine US SC 73.
supra note 2.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 408.
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192.
MANUPATRA, (May 22, 2023, 9:29 PM) https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Social-Morality-vs-Constitutional-Morality-with-special-reference-to-Navtej-Singh-Johar-V-Union-of-India
Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1.
Id at 421.
Id note 1 at 9.
Hagos, T. W, Separation of Law and Morality: The Art of Constitution Making, 9 International Journal of Ethiopian Studies (2015).
Id note 1 at 162.
Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2014) 1 SCC 1 (India).
supra note 44.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1783 (India).
Bhavya Sehajpal, LGBTQ rights and Societal impact of decriminalising Homosexuality, 2.4 JCLJ (2022).
supra Note 28.
The Special Marriage Act, § 2, No. 43 Acts of Parliament, 1954.
Aravind Narain, What Would an Ambedkarite Jurisprudence Look Like? 29 NLS LR (2017).
INDIA CONST. art. 142.
Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 (India).
Published
2024-08-23
How to Cite
Wani, S. A. (2024). Legal Recognition of LGBTQIA+: a Tussle between Popular Morality and Constitutional Morality . GLS Law Journal , 6(2), 12 - 20. https://doi.org/10.69974/glslawjournal.v6i2.133