Featured post

Press Release: Release of second edition (digital) of ‘Less than Gay’ – A Citizens’ Report on the status of Homosexuality in India

    The AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan (ABVA) is releasing the second edition of ‘ Less than Gay ’ – A Citizens’ Report on the status of Homo...

Thursday 27 April 2023

Open Letter to the Chief Justice of India on Same-sex Marriage Demand Pending Since 1991

 

Same-sex Marriage Demand Pending Since 1991

Open Letter to the Chief Justice of India

 

In re: W.P. (C) 1011/2022 titled Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. Vs.     Union of India

 

Hon’ble Sir,

 

The organization ABVA (AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan) was formed in 1988-89 and has spearheaded the gay rights movement in India since then. All our activities have been documented and can be accessed at http://aidsbhedbhavvirodhiandolan.blogspot.com/ . Briefly the significant ones are being outlined:

 

·        ABVA published ‘Less than Gay’ – A Citizens’ Report on the Status of Homosexuality in India in November 1991. It was co-authored by seven ABVA members. The 2nd Edition of the Report published in 2022 can be accessed at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RfsItCOMhYn9y6C3RRC6YX1XGHdxbbfT/view.

 

·        It contains a sixteen point Charter of Demands viz.

 

“ABVA urges the Government of India to take cognizance of the following demands and take urgent steps towards their realization:

 

1.  Repeal all discriminatory legislation singling out homosexual acts by consenting adults in private – section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, and the relevant sections of the Army, Navy and Air Force Acts, 1950. In other words, decriminalise sodomy.

2. Enact civil rights legislation to offer gay citizens and other sexual minorities such as hijras the same protections now guaranteed to others on the basis of caste, creed, and colour. Amend the Constitution to include equality before the law on the basis of “sex” and “sexual orientation.”

3.     Recognize the right to privacy as a fundamental part of the citizen’s right to life and liberty, including the right to his or her sexual orientation.

4.     Reform police policy (for example, by calling a meeting of senior police officers, including all Station House Officers (SHOs)), to put an end to the harassment of gay people at the hands of the police and public. Police authorities should take the initiative to make available information on all local public nuisance laws used on gay people in public places, and the relevant procedures and penalties specified therein. They should also make public the numbers of arrests, prosecutions and convictions of gay people under various laws along with the period of sentence, amount of fine and age of the offenders.

5. Establish a Commission to document human rights violations of gay people, such as violence and blackmail directed at gay men and lesbians, as well as atrocities within marriage on lesbians who may be married to men.

6.  Redefine the offence of rape in the Indian Penal Code to include all coercive sexual acts rather than only vaginal penetration. Rape laws should be made applicable to both men and women, irrespective of whether they are gay, nongay, married or single.

7.    Have the Press Council of India issue guidelines for respectful, sensitive and representative reporting on gay men and lesbians and issues around homosexuality.

8.   Have the Medical Council of India (MCI) issue guidelines to the effect that refusal to treat a person on the basis of his/her sexual orientation is a cause for censure on grounds of professional misconduct. Bring medical curricula in schools and medical colleges in line with the latest scientific theories of homosexuality.

9. Consider unethical any reckless and uncalled for sex-change surgery without informed consent and counselling. Counselling should be made available to help a person deal with the normality of his/her gender incongruities. Any irresponsible experimentation by medical professionals in this area should be made punishable by law.

10.Institute a massive, nation-wide survey of sexual behaviour in our society.

11.Ensure that everyone receives judgement-free health education related to sexuality, homosexuality, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), HIV testing, AIDS and condom use. All AIDS-related education should explicitly acknowledge sexual interaction between people of the same sex.

12.Delete the clauses in the AIDS (Prevention) Bill, 1989, (which lies pending before a Joint Parliamentary Committee) that provide for coercive testing, contact tracing, and isolation. Include explicit confidentiality on sexual orientation and anti-discrimination measures for the protection of people with HIV/AIDS.

13. Make available anonymous HIV testing facilities for all.

14.Alter the heterosexist bias in education, from school onwards, by presenting positive images and role models of gay men and lesbians and of homosexuality as a viable, healthy alternative lifestyle.

15.            Amend the Special Marriages Act to allow for marriages between people of the same sex (or between people who may be inter-sexed, or have undergone sex-change surgery, and any others). All consequential legal benefits of marriage should extend to gay marriages as well, including the right to adopt children, to execute a partner’s will, to inherit, etc. Same-sex couples should also be entitled to the legal benefits that accrue to their heterosexual counterparts of common law marriages.

No presumption as to fitness or unfitness for custody of a child or visitation rights shall arise based on sexual orientation of either parent in such a situation.

16.            Alternatively, legally recognize and encourage friendship agreements between single people of the same sex as a valid way of organizing family life.”

 

·        The report was released at a press conference in the third week of November 1991 at the Press Club of India, New Delhi. It was widely reported in the national and international media. Just scanned copy of the coverage in one of the papers The Telegraph is reproduced below wherein inter alia the demand for legalizing the same-sex marriage was made.



 

·        The report in The Telegraph mentions that a petition addressed to the Petitions Committee of Parliament was handed over a day prior to the press conference at the Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

 

·        The report has several case histories wherein lesbian couples wished to live together or marry or were forced to commit suicide.

 

·        In 1994 ABVA filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court titled Civil Writ Petition no. 1784 of 1994 titled AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan vs. Union of India and others; it took a year for the petition to be eventually admitted in 1995.

 

·        The environment in the court room in 1994-95 was homophobic. It was diametrically opposite to what the environment in the court room was in 2018 and presently in 2023.

 

·        The writ petition asked for repeal of S. 377, IPC and provision of condoms in medical setup in the confines of Tihar Jail, New Delhi.

 

·        The petition came up for final arguments in 2001 and was dismissed.

 

·        ABVA did a fact finding on the Mamata-Monalisa suicide pact in 1998-99. These two women in Orissa wanted to live together and had even prepared legal papers to this end. Facing social ostracism at their action they attempted suicide. This has been documented in ABVA’s report “For People Like Us” which can be accessed at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fmyS6f_GoE3JbH1p3Tk7DxEDibgZYUTa/view.

 

·        For the last 31 years we have been petitioning parliamentarians, political parties, Petitions Committee of Parliament, Union Home Ministry every time the government at the Centre would change. Till date we have neither got an acknowledgement; nor an appointment. No action has been taken on our petitions. Our experience of over three decades indicates that irrespective of the party in power at the Centre there is no intention to address the LGBTQIA issues.

 

·        So ABVA was forced to bring out another document in 2021 titled “The Struggle Will Continue Till Parliament Debates – Nay Concedes – The Gay Manifesto, 1991 New Delhi, India” which can be accessed at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15pEy5GU7oIhVpNq9hYh7pJ2lxMU2jW8b/view. It may be mentioned that the demand for same-sex marriage was made by ABVA in 1991 – ten years before any country in the world legalized such marriages.

 

Through this letter we wish to appeal to you that gay rights movement in India be not ignored when the final judgement in the pending petitions is pronounced by the Hon’ble Court.

 

Thanks.

Yours sincerely,

P.S. Sahni

Member, ABVA

Email: aidsbhedbhavvirodhiandolan@gmail.com

 

Thursday 20 April 2023

Why Can’t the Constitution Bench Hearing Same-sex Marriage Pleas Concurrently Also Hear Kashmir Petitions?

 

by

Shobha Aggarwal

 

Tension between Executive and Judiciary is healthy for democracy.   According to Lord Woolf “the tension is acceptable because it demonstrates that the courts are performing their role of ensuring that the actions of the Government of the day are being taken in accordance with the law. The tension is a necessary consequence of maintaining the balance of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.”

 

In India at present the ostensible tension between the Executive and the Judiciary is by and large superficial. What is apparent in fact is that Supreme Court of India (SC) is indulging in masterly inactivity in cases the judgement whereof may embarrass the government of the day. Such a scenario is dangerous for the democracy. It is also dangerous for the democracy when the top court of the country picks and chooses constitutional cases it would finally adjudicate without regard to the fundamental principle of first come first served. In not too distant past during the Internal Emergency (1975-77), the Supreme Court of India abdicated its constitutional mandate to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens of India and the same spectre is visible again to perceptive observers.

 

A constitution bench of the SC on Tuesday, 18 April 2023 started hearing arguments on the petitions pending before it on the issue of same-sex marriage etc. The first such petition was filed in the Supreme Court in November 2022. The question that arises: why is the alacrity shown by the SC in listing the same-sex marriage petition filed as recently as November 2022 not shown for all the constitutional matters filed prior to it?

 

In 2019 after the abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) into two Union territories by the Central Government many petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the same. (Kashmir petitions for short). A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had declined to stop the Centre from carving out two centrally-administered union territories (UTs) out of Jammu and Kashmir. I was present in the Supreme Court on 1 October 2019 when Justice S.K. Kaul had said in the open court that the SC could always “turn the clock back”. However the petitions have not been listed for hearing after 2 March 2020 when a five judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court declined to refer the petitions to a larger bench. Since then the matters have been mentioned before the Court many times for urgent listing but not taken up so far.

 

In the meanwhile many administrative, executive and legislative steps have been taken by Government of India in J&K which will in times to come change the whole ethos of Kashmir society. On 13 February 2023, a division bench of the Supreme Court presided over by S.K. Kaul, J. dismissed a challenge to the constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir Delimitation Commission to readjust constituencies in the new Union Territory. This was an opportunity to at least freeze the clock if not turn it back. Was this a signal to the people of Kashmir that the Supreme Court will not adjudicate the constitutionality of the abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir as it as a hard case to decide and that it will simply shove the matter under the carpet till such time that the legality and constitutionality of these actions become academic? If the Supreme Court had the will to decide the Kashmir petitions it could have done that any time. In fact “eleven different cases were heard and disposed off through virtual hearings by a constitutional bench constituted during COVID-19 times, ...” (The Wire, 25.05.2022) 

 

If the Kashmir petitions were to be decided as per law and constitution the people of J&K are likely to get justice. In my humble opinion the SC judges – if they adjudicate the petitions will have no option but to strike down the Presidential Orders abrogating Article 370 and The Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act of 2019. If not, the future historians may compare them to the judges in the ADM Jabalpur case.

 

Contrast this with the same-sex marriage petitions which are being heard out of turn. Were the Supreme Court to grant rights of marriage, adoption etc to LGBTQIA community, it would be projected as a liberal court to the whole world. India would then become one of the few countries which grant these rights to LGBTQIA community. Such an image is beneficial to the Indian Government as it projects India as a liberal democracy to the world – the opposition to the same-sex marriage petitions by the Union of India in the court notwithstanding. Let’s not forget that “ 2023 V-Dem report refers to India as “one of the worst autocratisers in the last 10 years” in a blurb on page 10 and places India in the bottom 40-50% on its Liberal Democracy Index at rank 97. India also ranks 108 on the Electoral Democracy Index and 123 on the Egalitarian Component Index.”(The Wire, 07.03.2023)

 

It is my ardent hope that the present Chief Justice of India would not let history repeat itself. During the Internal Emergency it was the liberty of citizens of India which was at stake, this time around inter-alia it is the liberty of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. They should not be kept in a limbo for an infinite period of time. The same constitution bench that is hearing same-sex marriage petitions should – after the final arguments are over in the latter petitions – immediately hear the Kashmir petitions.

 

Post Script: (1) Lest someone think that I am not sensitive to LGBTQIA rights I may state for the record that I am a member of AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan (ABVA) since its inception in 1988-89. ABVA had brought out the first Citizens’ Report on the status of homosexuality in India in 1991 titled “Less than Gay”. The report included a Charter of Demands which inter alia asked for full repeal of Section 377 of Indian Penal Code as well as marriage and adoption rights for the LGBTQIA community. In 1994 ABVA filed the first petition in India in the Delhi High Court asking for striking down of S. 377 in toto. The petition was filed by ABVA through me as none of the other ABVA members were willing to take the risk. All the known LGBTQIA activists were too scared to lend their names then. In fact no other NGO till 2001 joined our endeavor. Since 1991 I have along with ABVA consistently campaigned for gay rights.

 

(2) In an earlier piece written on 04.08.2020 in Countercurrents.org I had reasoned why Justice S.K. Kaul should recuse himself from hearing Kashmir petitions. I had then hoped that the petitions would be heard soon. It didn’t happen. Now that Justice Kaul is due to retire on 25.12.2023, he could be part of the bench as I don’t want to be seen to be depriving him of putting the clock of history back in Kashmir – even if it is by way of a dissenting judgement!!!