Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha

Last updated
Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha
Emblem of India.svg
Court Orissa High Court
Full case name Chinmayee Jena versus State of Odisha &Ors.
Decided24 August 2020
Citation W. P. (CRL) No. 57 of 2021
Court membership
Judges sittingS. K. Mishra J. and Savitri Ratho J.
Case opinions
  • The right of self-determination of gender as an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression.
  • Trans persons have the right to cohabit with the partner of their choice, regardless of the “gender” of the partner.
Decision byS. K. Mishra J. and Savitri Ratho J.
Keywords
Cohabitation Rights, Transgender Recognition, Queer Relationships

Chinmayee Jena versus State of Odisha &Ors.(2020) is case where the Orissa High Court upheld the right of self-determination of gender as an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression. The court recognized the rights of trans persons to cohabit with the partner of their choice, regardless of the “gender” of the partner. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Contents

The Supreme Court of India acknowledged this case in its publication titled "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community" as one of the High Court judgments that effectively addressed the difficulties and obstacles experienced by queer individuals within the justice system due to their systemic marginalization. [5]

Background

The petitioner, a 24-year-old trans man, was born under the name Chinmayee Jena, and he has chosen the name Sonu Krishna Jena, engaged in a consensual relationship with his romantic partner since 2017. As their relationship progressed, the couple decided to reside together in their apartment located in Bhubaneshwar. [3] [4]

However, on April 9, 2020, Sonu Krishna Jena's partner was taken away from their apartment by her mother and uncle against her will. In reaction to this, Sonu Jena lodged complaints with Inspector In-Charge of Khandagiri Police Station in Bhubaneswar and Inspector In-Charge of Bari Police Station in Jajpur, but received no response. In the interim, he discovered that his partner's family had arranged a forced marriage for her with someone else. Seeking the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner urges the Court to demand his partner's presentation and appropriate action from the respondents. [3] [4]

Proceedings

The petitioner's counsel submitted a Gender Dysphoria certification for a Transgender Person, issued by Dr. Amrit Pattojoshi, M.D. (Neuro-Psychiatry), of the Central Institute of Psychiatry in Ranchi. The certificate affirms that Sonu Krishna Jena experiences gender incongruence (referred to as gender dysphoria in DSM-5) and is devoid of any psychotic symptoms or other psychiatric conditions. Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel presented the joint affidavit from Sonu Krishna Jena and his partner, attested by the Executive Magistrate of Bhubaneswar on March 16, 2020, confirming their current cohabitation. [4] [6]

The Additional Advocate General representing the State Government of Orissa acknowledged the right of individuals of the same gender to live together and affirmed that the State is prepared to comply with any directives issued by the Court. [4] [6]

The Court has instructed the Superintendent of Police of Jajpur to determine the desires of Sonu Krishna Jena's romantic partner, including whether she intends to remain with the petitioner, and to ensure that her marriage is not solemnized against her wishes. [4] [6]

On August 17, 2020, the court held a video conferencing session with Sonu Krishna Jena's romantic partner. The justices clarified to her that the mere filing of the writ petition alleging illegal restraint did not compel her to join Sonu Krishna Jena if she chose otherwise. She was free to remain with her family if she so desired. Sonu Krishna Jena's romantic partner explicitly expressed her intention to join Sonu Krishna Jena without delay. However, the court did not issue an order on that day, deferring it to August 21, 2020, upon the request of the counsel representing the family of Sonu Krishna Jena's romantic partner. [4] [6]

On 21 August 2020, the counsel representing Sonu Krishna Jena's partner's family conveyed that the partner's widowed mother, like many Indian mothers, had faced considerable challenges while raising her two daughters, providing education with the aspiration of their self-sufficiency and eventual marriage. The counsel stated that Sonu Krishna Jena's partner's mother is disturbed by her daughter's choices and envisions a change of heart over time, expressing concerns about the future of both daughters, particularly Sonu Krishna Jena's partner, who has taken a path that diverges from societal norms. The counsel sought protective measures for the safety and well-being of Sonu Krishna Jena's partner, if the court rules in favor of Sonu Krishna Jena. [4] [6]

Opinion of the Court

The court noted that Sonu Krishna Jena, who is of legal age and does not exhibit any psychological issues aside from gender incongruence (referred to as gender dysphoria in DSM-5), possesses typical cognitive functions, signifying that, as an adult, he holds the capacity to make medical decisions. The court drew upon the verdict of the Supreme Court in the case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014), where it was established that self-determination of gender forms an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression, falling within the ambit of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Importantly, the court cited the Yogyakarta Principles from the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) verdict to affirm the inviolable nature of universal human rights for all individuals. Consequently, the court upheld the right of self-determination of gender as an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression. [1] [2] [4]

Additionally, the court relied on the verdict of the Supreme Court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which upheld the entitlement of queer community members to the benefits of equal citizenship devoid of discrimination, and equal protection under the law. The court determined that Sonu Krishna Jena and his partner possess the right to chose their partner, including the right to cohabit. Consequently, the court directed the State Government of Odisha to extend various forms of protection to them, as outlined in Part III of the Constitution of India, including the right to life, the right to equality before the law, and the guarantee of equal protection under the law. Addressing the concerns raised by the family of Sonu Krishna Jena's partner, the court established that Sonu Krishna Jena's partner holds the rights accorded to women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005. [1] [2] [4]

Concurring Opinion

In a concurring opinion, Justice Savitri Ratho emphasized that the array of preventive, remedial, and punitive measures designed to address honor crimes and related unlawful activities, as delineated by the Supreme Court in the Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) case, is pertinent to the present case. Justice Savitri Ratho expressed that while the mother of Sonu Krishna Jena's partner has the option to invoke the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007 if Sonu Krishna Jena's partner fails to provide financial support, the family of Sonu Krishna Jena's partner should not disrupt the lives of Sonu Krishna Jena and his partner. [1] [2] [4]

Impact

Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha holds immense significance as India's pioneering judicial ruling explicitly acknowledging trans persons' rights to engage in a cohabiting relationship with their chosen partner, irrespective of the partner's gender. This decision establishes a robust precedent safeguarding cohabitation and partnership rights for queer Indians, further reinforcing the Supreme Court's verdicts in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) . [3]

The Supreme Court of India acknowledged this case in its publication "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community," underscoring it as a significant example of a High Court confronting systemic hurdles encountered by queer individuals within the justice system, with the publication highlighting that the ruling provided due recognition to the self-identified gender identity and pronouns of a transgender man petitioner, consistently referring to him as he/him/his throughout the judgment. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in India</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people in India face legal and social challenges not experienced by non-LGBT people. There are no legal restrictions against gay sex or gay expression within India. Same-sex couples have some limited cohabitation rights, colloquially known as live-in relationships. However, India does not currently provide for common law marriages, same-sex marriage, civil unions, guardianship or issue partnership certificates.

India does not recognise same-sex marriage, civil unions or other forms of partnerships, but provides some limited legal recognition to cohabiting same-sex couples in the form of live-in relationships. Several same-sex couples have married in traditional Hindu ceremonies since the late 1980s; however, these marriages are not registered with the state and couples do not enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married opposite-sex couples. The Supreme Court of India in August 2022 provided social security rights to those in same-sex live-in relationships while also recognising same-sex couples as being part of a "family unit".

<i>National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India(2014) is a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India, which declared transgender people the 'third gender', affirmed that the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution of India will be equally applicable to them, and gave them the right to self-identification of their gender as male, female or third gender.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Kerala</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Kerala face legal and social difficulties not experienced by non-LGBT persons. However, Kerala has been at the forefront of LGBT issues in India after Tamil Nadu. It became one of the first states in India to establish a welfare policy for the transgender community and in 2016, proposed implementing free gender affirmation surgery through government hospitals. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 2018, following the Supreme Court ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. In addition, numerous LGBT-related events have been held across Kerala, including in Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram. However, there is also increasing opposition to LGBT rights recently as evidenced by the anti-LGBT campaigns spearheaded by meninist groups and Muslim organisations like Indian Union Muslim League, Samastha and Jamaat-e-Islami.

<i>Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Navtej Singh Johar &Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.

Arundhati Katju is a lawyer qualified to practice in India and New York. She has litigated many notable cases at the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court, including the Section 377 case, the case of a trans man being illegally confined by his parents, the Augusta Westland bribery case, the 2G spectrum corruption case and the Jessica Lal murder case. Her law practice encompasses white-collar defence, general civil litigation, and public interest cases.

<i>S Sushma v. Commissioner of Police</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

S Sushma &Anr. versus Commissioner of Police&Ors.(2021) is a landmark decision of the Madras High Court that prohibited practice of "conversion therapy" by medical professionals in India. The court directed comprehensive measures to sensitize the society and various branches of the Union and State governments to remove prejudices against the queer community.

<i>Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Sultana Mirza &Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh &Ors. (2020), a decision of the Allahabad High Court, established that the Constitutional Court bears the responsibility of overseeing and upholding both constitutional morality and the rights of citizens, particularly when these rights are endangered solely due to their sexual orientation.

<i>Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Poonam Rani &Anr.v. State Of Uttar Pradesh&Ors. (2021) a decision of the Allahabad High Court, reaffirmed that the Constitutional Court bears the responsibility of overseeing and upholding both constitutional morality and the rights of citizens, particularly when these rights are endangered solely due to their sexual orientation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ivanka Das</span> Indian dancer, actress, model

Ivanka Das is an Indian actress, dancer, choreographer, and model. She is known for her participation in the Indian reality television show Dance Deewane, the films Haddi and Ghoomer, as well as the Netflix series Bombay Begums.

<i>Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal</i> Indian Case Law

Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal &Ors.(2022) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that widens the definition of 'family' under Indian law.

<i>Rohit Sagar v. State of Uttarakhand</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Rohit Sagar &Anr. versus State of Uttarakhand &Ors.(2021), a decision of the Uttarakhand High Court, established the right of legal adults to select their own partners and instructed the police to ensure the couple's safety and safeguard their property.

<i>Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Arun Kumar &Anr. versus Inspector General of Registration&Ors. (2019) is a decision of the Madras High Court which recognised trans woman as a "bride" within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and prohibited genital-normalizing surgery for intersex infants and children except on life-threatening situations.

<i>Adhila Nasarin v. State Commissioner of Police</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Adhila Nasarin versus State Commissioner of Police &Ors.(2022) is case where Kerala High Court held that the adults in mutually consenting relationship should be allowed to live their lives according to their informed choice, regardless of gender.

<i>Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Sreeja S versus Commissioner of Police &Ors.(2018) is case where Kerala High Court held that separating the adults in a consensual relationship is a violation of the Constitutional right, regardless of their sexual orientation.

<i>Ujjawal v. State of Haryana</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Ujjawal &Anr. versus State of Haryana&Ors.(2021), a case where Punjab and Haryana High Court, refused to provide police protection to a couple facing threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society."

<i>Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Devu G. Nair versus State Of Kerala &Ors. (2023) is an ongoing Supreme Court case, poised to examine the legality of Conversion Therapy and addressing whether the High Court should have facilitated the alleged detainee's opportunity to provide their statement in person within the secure confines of the High Court building.

<i>XYZ v. State of Maharashtra</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

XYZ &Anr. versus State of Maharashtra&Ors.(2023) is an ongoing case of Bombay High Court, which is considering comprehensive measures to sensitize the society and various branches of the State Government of Maharashtra to remove prejudices against the queer community.

<i>Chanchal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal</i>

Chanchal Bhattacharya versus State of West Bengal &Ors. (2015), a decision of the Calcutta High Court, asserts that individuals who have undergone gender-affirming surgery have a constitutional right to the recognition of their affirmed gender. The verdict emphasized the importance for educational and administrative institutions to adjust their records to reflect such changes, aiming to prevent inconvenience or discrimination.

<i>Queerala v. State of Kerala</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Queerala &Anr. versus State of Kerala&Ors. (2020) is an ongoing case of the Kerala High Court, where the Bench has directed the State Government of Kerala to implement stringent measures against involuntary conversion therapy and formulate guidelines pertaining to conversion therapy based on an expert committee's study that incorporates insights from queer community-based organizations and relevant stakeholders.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Scroll Staff (2020-08-27). "Odisha HC allows same-sex couple to live-in, says 'love knows no bounds has expanded its bounds'". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2023-08-16.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Orissa HC allows transman to continue live-in relationship with woman". The Hindu. 2020-08-26. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 2023-08-16.
  3. 1 2 3 4 "Chinmayee Jena Vs State of Odisha & Others". South Asian Translaw Database. Retrieved 2022-10-07.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Chinmayee Jena versus State of Odisha & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 57 of 2020 ( Orissa High Court ).
  5. 1 2 Supreme Court of India (26 November 2022), Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community (PDF), Supreme Court of India, p. 25, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2023
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Upadhyay, Sparsh (2020-08-25). "'Love Knows No Bound Has Expanded Its Bounds To Include Same-Sex Relationships': Orissa HC Allows Same-Sex Live-In Couple To Stay Together [Read Judgment]". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2022-10-07.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.