MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Courts Must Eschew Substituting Subjective Values for Constitutional Protections”: Apex Court in LGBTQ+ Habeas Corpus Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, emphasized the importance of individual autonomy and constitutional protections in matters concerning personal liberty and the recognition of LGBTQ+ rights.

This case, revolving around a habeas corpus petition, raised critical questions on personal liberty, especially concerning individuals from the LGBTQ+ community. The core issue was whether a woman (‘X’), allegedly detained by her parents, was indeed under illegal confinement, and the extent to which the judiciary should intervene in matters of personal choice and sexual orientation.

The appellant alleged that ‘X’, with whom she shared an intimate relationship, was detained by her parents. The High Court directed an interaction and counselling session for ‘X’, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court. The case involved sensitive issues related to personal liberty, individual autonomy, and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Autonomy and Freedom of Choice: The Supreme Court, after considering a report from Ms. Saleena V G Nair, a senior Judicial Officer, acknowledged that ‘X’ was living with her parents of her own volition and dismissed the habeas corpus petition.

Against Influencing Sexual Orientation: The Court expressed concern over the potential influence of court-ordered counselling on an individual’s sexual orientation and identity, stating that courts should not attempt to override the identity and sexual orientation of individuals.

Guidelines for Future Cases: The Court provided comprehensive guidelines for handling similar cases, emphasizing respect for individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and the concept of chosen family. These include ensuring non-coercive environments in court proceedings, immediate release if the individual does not wish to return to the detainer, and prohibition of counselling aimed at altering sexual orientation or identity.

Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal based on the report, reiterating the paramountcy of personal liberty and recognizing the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Date of Decision: March 11, 2024

Devu G Nair v. The State of Kerala & Ors.

Latest Legal News