"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering 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