Family values: Court affirms Tamil Nadu's inclusive gender traditions
In a landmark ruling delivered earlier this month, the Madras High Court affirmed that same-sex couples can form families without legal marriage. It marked a major milestone for LGBTQIA+ rights in India, particularly in Tamil Nadu. Emerging from a habeas corpus petition, the ruling addressed the case of a 25-yearold lesbian woman detained by her natal family. Her partner sought her release so that they could live together. While securing her freedom, Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan expanded the definition of family under Indian law, emphasising personal autonomy and right to self-determination.
It comes decades after the 2002 suicide of two lesbian women in Erode's Satyamangalam forest after facing societal rejection of their relationship. Despite this, the 2025 verdict builds on Tamil Nadu's progressive legacy rooted in both legal reforms and Indic traditions fostering wider acceptance of diverse identities. The verdict signals progress while recognising the concept of a 'chosen family' under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees life and personal liberty. The court's assertion that 'marriage is not the sole mode to found a family' validates non-traditional relationships and offers hope where despair once prevailed.
Despite a section of society refusing to accept gender-diverse communities, every May to July, vast numbers of indigenous gender-variant and diverse SOGIESC (sexual orientation, gender identity, expression, and sex characteristics) communities in south India honour their patron deities at temples such as those for Koothandavar Aravan in Tamil Nadu, and for Ellamma, Bhagavati and Mariamman across the region. These communities enact gender-specific Hindu rituals, which have historically provided sacred spaces for early LGBTQIA+ activism. This cultural acceptance, though not universal, has helped shape a more inclusive societal framework and complemented the legal efforts.
The court's legal reasoning in the latest case was meticulous. The detainee confirmed her lesbian identity and desire to live with her partner, exposing familial coercion. The judges, referencing the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in the Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty case, noted while same-sex marriage remains unrecognised, same-sex couples can still form families. The court criticised police inaction and directed law enforcement to protect the couple, reinforcing the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual rights against societal and familial pressures
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Marathi Sahitya Mahamandal to join protest against language imposition
The Akhil Bharatiya Marathi Sahitya Mahamandal on Saturday announced its participation in a protest rally scheduled for July 5 in Mumbai, opposing the government's decision to introduce Hindi or other Indian languages as compulsory subjects from Class 1 onwards. The announcement was made by the Mahamandal president, Prof Milind Joshi. Joshi pointed out that although the education minister had earlier announced a pause on implementing the language policy, the State government later issued an official notice reaffirming its April 16 decision. Joshi noted that this was done without consulting education experts, language advocacy organisations, or the state's own language advisory committee. (REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO) Joshi, however, clarified that the rally is not affiliated with any political party. 'The Mahamandal has no political interest. Our sole objective is to protect the Marathi language and ensure it continues to thrive with pride. We are not against any language, but we oppose the imposition of any language,' he said. He also pointed out that although the education minister had earlier announced a pause on implementing the language policy, the State government later issued an official notice reaffirming its April 16 decision. Joshi noted that this was done without consulting education experts, language advocacy organisations, or the state's own language advisory committee. 'This disregard for expert opinion and scientific research on language learning highlights the government's insensitivity towards Marathi-speaking citizens,' he said. He further stressed that introducing a third language at the primary level adds a cognitive burden on children, who already struggle with Marathi and English. 'At such a young age, students perceive any non-native language as foreign, and it hinders learning. Child psychology supports this view,' he explained. 'Even though Marathi and English are mandatory up to Class 10, many students in Class 8 still struggle with reading in their second language,' Joshi said.
Economic Times
35 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- Indian Express
First task for Madhya Pradesh minister who stirred Col Qureshi row: Tackle eviction fallout in wildlife sanctuary
In his first public assignment since triggering outrage with his remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who had briefed the media during Operation Sindoor, Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister Kunwar Kunwar Vijay Shah has been deputed to Dewas by CM Mohan Yadav to assess the fallout of a controversial eviction drive inside the Kheoni Wildlife Sanctuary. Shah, who is now being investigated by a Supreme Court-ordered SIT, comprising senior police officers from the state, has been absent from the public eye after an FIR was registered against him for his comments referring to Colonel Qureshi as 'the sister of terrorists' during a public meeting in Mhow on May 11. Later, Shah had apologised thrice and was pulled up by the Supreme Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Meanwhile, there has been unrest across Khategaon tehsil after the the Forest Department cleared on June 23, what it described as 'illegal encroachments', over 82 hectares of sanctuary land, demolishing kachha dwellings and houses reportedly built by tribal families. Officials claimed due process was followed, including the issuance of notices a month in advance. Tribal rights groups and political leaders have planned protests over the issue. Chief Minister Mohan Yadav said, 'Referring to an incident involving Forest Department action in the Kheoni Wildlife Sanctuary area of Dewas, Minister for Tribal Affairs Shri Kunwar Vijay Shah has been directed to visit the site, assess the situation, and ensure every possible help is extended to the affected families.' Yadav said that the 'Forest Department has also been instructed to avoid any action that may cause inconvenience to people during the monsoon season. All welfare schemes in the state are being implemented following due procedure and ensuring that benefits reach the genuinely needy.' A demonstration had been planned on June 27, and another on June 29 by Jai Adivasi Yuva Shakti (JAYS). According to district officials, approximately 50 families are supposed to receive `20,000 each as compensation, along with a six-month ration supply and one month of cooked meals. Apart from this, housing scheme benefits and construction of a new road in the area were also promised. While tribal communities protested what they called 'arbitrary displacement', several Eco Development Committees held a counter-rally supporting the Forest Department, saying that their livelihoods depended on forest produce like mahua and tendu leaves, which were threatened by the alleged encroachment.
