The Supreme Court has provided guidelines for Habeas Corpus Petitions concerning LGBTQ+ communities and for partners of intimate relationships. In this case, the court provided the distinction between the natal family and the chosen family and also highlighted the fact that the Judges should not try to divert the sexual orientation of person in these petitions. People have right to their sexual orientation and choose their partners. The counselling should not fill thoughts changing perspective towards their sexual orientation.
Table of Contents
Case Title
Devu G Nair v. The State of Kerala, 2024 INSC 228.
Bench: CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, J. JB Pardiwala & J. Manoj Mishra
Facts
These proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution arose from the Interim order of the Kerala High Court with respect to the writ petition of Habeas Corpus. The Corpus(x) and the appellant were both female and were in an intimate relationship. The parents had custody of x. They did not allow x to meet the appellant. The appellant filed a writ to get x out of illegal detention of parents. Kerala HC sent the secretary of the District Legal Service Authority to record statement of x to ascertain if she was under illegal detention. After the interaction, the HC directed x to undergo a counselling session with a psychologist. Faced with these issues, this court issued interim directions.
The court directed parent of x to produce before family court and further the Principal Judge of the Family Court was directed to arrange for an interview of x with Saleena V G Nair, a Member of the e-Committee of the Supreme Court. The interview was conducted were it was clearly mentioned that x was living with her parents with own volition. She accepted intimate relationship with appellant but also stated that she does not wish to marry any person or live with any person for the time being. ¶1-11.
Issue
The court addressed the important question on the appellant’s submission that the High Court has been passing orders directing the counselling of persons similarly situated as x and there is an apprehension that the counselling should not turn out into a means to overcome the will of the corpus, particularly in regard to their sexual orientation. ¶12
Court Observations
The sexual orientation of individuals should not be inappropriately overcome with the attempt of purported counselling. Judges must eschew the tendency to substitute their own subjective values for the values which are protected by the Constitution. ¶13
The court also highlighted the importance of the natal family and chosen family. For LGBTQ+ Community members, the lack of safety and violence against them by natal family should be considered. When faced with humiliation, indignity, and even violence, people look to their partner and friends who become their chosen family. ¶14
Guidelines for Habeas Corpus Petitions Concerning LGBTQ+ Communities
Supreme Court provided guidelines for Habeas Corpus petitions to be followed by HCs in letter and spirit as a mandatory minimum measure to secure the fundamental rights and dignity of intimate partners, and member of the LGBTQ+ Communities in illegal detention:
- Habeas corpus petitions and petitions for protection filed by a partner, friend or a natal family member must be given a priority in listing and hearing before the court. A court must avoid adjourning the matter, or delays in the disposal of the case;
- In evaluating the locus standi of a partner or friend, the court must not make a roving enquiry into the precise nature of the relationship between the appellant and the person;
- The effort must be to create an environment conducive for a free and uncoerced dialogue to ascertain the wishes of the corpus;
- The court must ensure that the corpus is produced before the court and given the opportunity to interact with the judges in-person in chambers to ensure the privacy and safety of the detained or missing person. The court must conduct in-camera proceedings. The recording of the statement must be transcribed and the recording must be secured to ensure that it is not accessible to any other party;
- The court must ensure that the wishes of the detained person is not unduly influenced by the Court, or the police, or the natal family during the course of the proceedings. In particular, the court must ensure that the individuals(s) alleged to be detaining the individual against their volition are not present in the same environment as the detained or missing person. Similarly, in petitions seeking police protection from the natal family of the parties, the family must not be placed in the same environment as the petitioners;
- Upon securing the environment and inviting the detained or missing person in chambers, the court must make active efforts to put the detained or missing person at ease. The preferred name and pronouns of the detained or missing person may be asked. The person must be given a comfortable seating, access to drinking water and washroom. They must be allowed to take periodic breaks to collect themselves. The judge must adopt a friendly and compassionate demeanor and make all efforts to defuse any tension or discomfort. Courts must ensure that the detained or missing person faces no obstacles in being able to express their wishes to the court;
- A court while dealing with the detained or missing person may ascertain the age of the detained or missing person. However, the minority of the detained or missing person must not be used, at the threshold, to dismiss a habeas corpus petition against illegal detention by a natal family;
- The judges must showcase sincere empathy and compassion for the case of the detained or missing person. Social morality laden with homophobic or transphobic views or any personal predilection of the judge or sympathy for the natal family must be eschewed. The court must ensure that the law is followed in ascertaining the free will of the detained or missing person;
- If a detained or missing person expresses their wish to not go back to the alleged detainer or the natal family, then the person must be released immediately without any further delay;
- The court must acknowledge that some intimate partners may face social stigma and a neutral stand of the law would be detrimental to the fundamental freedoms of the appellant. Therefore, a court while dealing with a petition for police protection by intimate partners on the grounds that they are a same sex, transgender, inter-faith or inter-caste couple must grant an ad-interim measure, such as immediately granting police protection to the petitioners, before establishing the threshold requirement of being at grave risk of violence and abuse. The protection granted to intimate partners must be with a view to maintain their privacy and dignity;
- The Court shall not pass any directions for counselling or parental care when the corpus is produced before the Court. The role of the Court is limited to ascertaining the will of the person. The Court must not adopt counselling as a means of changing the mind of the appellant, or the detained/missing person;
- The Judge during the interaction with the corpus to ascertain their views must not attempt to change or influence the admission of the sexual orientation or gender identity of the appellant or the corpus. The court must act swiftly against any queerphobic, transphobic, or otherwise derogatory conduct or remark by the alleged detainers, court staff, or lawyers; and
- Sexual orientation and gender identity fall in a core zone of privacy of an individual. These identities are a matter of self-identification and no stigma or moral judgment must be imposed when dealing with cases involving parties from the LGBTQ+ community. Courts must exercise caution in passing any direction or making any comment which may be perceived as pejorative.
To read similar content click here.
Leave a Reply