Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

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.

Similar News