Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala

Last updated
Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala
Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.svg
Court Supreme Court of India
Full case name Devu G. Nair versus State of Kerala &Ors.
DecidedTBA
CitationsS.L.P(Crl.) No. 1891/2023
Diary No. 5027/2023
Case history
Prior actionsWP(Crl.) No. 28 of 2023

District Legal Services Authority to ascertain the legality of alleged detainee's detention at the residence of alleged detainers.

Contents

Alleged detainee in a same-sex relationship must attend counseling, with option for alleged detainers to accompany her.
Appealed from Kerala High Court
Court membership
Judges sitting DY Chandrachud CJI., P. S. Narasimha J., J.B. Pardiwala J.
Case opinions
Decision by DY Chandrachud CJI., P. S. Narasimha J., J.B. Pardiwala J.
Keywords
Cohabitation Rights, Same-sex Relationship, Conversion Therapy

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. [1] [2] [3]

Background

The petitioner, Devu G. Nair, is engaged in a consensual same-sex relationship with U. Sreerenjini, an alleged detainee of 23 years, who is presently being held by her parents under purported false circumstances to separate her from Devu G. Nair since 9th January 2023. As a response, Devu G. Nair has initiated a legal action by filing a petition in the Kerala High Court, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to demand U. Sreerenjini's presence and secure her release. [2] [3]

Kerala High Court

Proceedings

On 13th January 2023, a two-judge Bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Judge Alexander Thomas and Judge C.S. Sudha, issued an order directing the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority in Kollam to visit the parents' residence of alleged detainee U. Sreerenjini, aiming to record her statement and ascertain the legality of her detention by her parents. The Bench ordered that if the statement suggests U. Sreerenjini's unlawful detention, her presentation before the High Court by 19th January 2023, is required. Conversely, the Bench noted that unless U. Sreerenjini's statement denies unlawful detention, her appearance before the Kerala High Court is unnecessary. [4] [5] [6]

When the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority of Kollam visited the home of U. Sreerenjini's parents, who were the alleged detainers, alleged detainee U. Sreerenjini provided a statement affirming her romantic involvement with the petitioner Devu G. Nair but refuted any claim of unlawful detention by her parents. [1] [7]

On 31st January 2023, the Bench, without delving into the specifics of U. Sreerenjini's statement to the Secretary of District Legal Services Authority of Kollam, directed the Station House Officer of Kollam West Police Station to ensure U. Sreeranjini's presence before the Secretary of District Legal Services Authority of Kollam on 2nd February 2023, for a direct video conference between the Kerala High Court and U. Sreeranjini. [6] [8]

The petitioner Devu G. Nair asserted that during U. Sreerenjini's virtual appearance before the Kerala High Court, U. Sreerenjini explicitly conveyed her romantic affection for Devu G. Nair and expressed a desire to reside with her. [2] [9]

Interim Order

On 2nd February 2023, a two-judge Bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Judge Alexander Thomas and Judge C.S. Sudha, without examining the content of the statement furnished by the alleged detainee U. Sreerenjini to the Kerala High Court, found it suitable for U. Sreerenjini to receive counseling at an authorized center. Accordingly, the Bench directed the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority of Kollam to facilitate U. Sreerenjini's counseling sessions with a psychologist attached to a Kollam counseling center over the next four or five days. Furthermore, the Bench ruled that U. Sreerenjini's parents, who are the alleged detainers, could accompany her to the counseling center. [4] [6] [10]

Supreme Court

Special leave to appeal

The special leave to appeal does not grant an automatic right to appeal but rather provides the right to request special leave to appeal. The Supreme Court, recognizing its exceptional and supreme authority in granting special leave to appeal, employs this discretionary jurisdiction with care, preserving it for rare and exceptional situations to prevent the continuation of injustice. [11] [12] To qualify for the special leave to appeal, the legal question raised in the petition must be of significant importance, either with broad public implications or with a direct and substantial impact on the rights of the parties involved. [11] [13] Additionally, the Supreme Court's intervention becomes necessary when different High Courts hold conflicting views on the same legal question. [11] [14]

Petition

The petitioner's counsel has filed a special leave petition, seeking to contest the interim orders issued by the Kerala High Court on 13th January 2023, and 2nd February 2023, raising legal questions concerning the validity of 'conversion therapy,' and 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. Furthermore, the counsel argued that interim orders deprived the petitioner and the alleged detainee of fundamental rights, spanning from January 9, 2023, to the present. [2] [3]

Conversion therapy

The counsel contested an interim order issued by the Kerala High Court on 2nd February 2023, which mandated that the alleged detainee involved in a same-sex relationship must participate in counseling sessions with a psychologist. The counsel argued that it was inherently flawed and in conflict with legal principles. The petitioner's argument was based on the claim that the counseling sessions provided to a detainee in a same-sex relationship essentially intended to alter the detainee's sexual orientation. [1] [2]

The counsel pointed out a notable discrepancy between two interim orders issued by the Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court concerning the legality of 'conversion therapy.' [1] [2] [9] In the Madras High Court case of S Sushma v. Commissioner of Police (2021) , a ruling on 7th June 2021, declared that any attempts to medically change the sexual orientation or gender identity of queer individuals to heterosexual and cisgender identities should be prohibited. The Madras High Court instructed the National Medical Commission to take measures against professionals engaged in any form of 'conversion therapy,' which could involve revoking their license to practice. [15] [16] Consequently, on September 2, 2022, the National Medical Commission formally classified the practice of 'conversion therapy' as a type of professional misconduct, thereby granting State Medical Councils the authority to take punitive measures against medical professionals engaging in 'conversion therapy.' [17] [18]

In light of these circumstances, the counsel sought a definitive determination regarding the legality of 'Conversion Therapy.' [1] [2]

Habeas Corpus

The counsel contested an interim order issued by the Kerala High Court on 13th January 2023, instructing the District Legal Service Authority to record the statement of the detainee, at the residence of alleged detainers. The counsel contended that this approach did not serve the purpose and invoked the principle of habeas corpus. According to the detainee's statement to the District Legal Service Authority, she confirmed her romantic relationship with the petitioner while denying any illegal detention. However, the counsel alleged that the detainee had made the statement under duress and requested her physical presence in court. [1] [2] [7] [9]

Consequently, the counsel sought a legal determination on 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. [2] [3]

Fundamental Rights

The counsel contests interim orders, asserting that they have infringed upon the fundamental rights of both the petitioner and the detainee, specifically their safety and liberty. The counsel emphasized interim orders have prolonged the deprivation of safety and liberty for the detainee, spanning from January 9, 2023, to the present day. The counsel argued that the interim orders are in conflict with a binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which established that sexual orientation is an intrinsic aspect of constitutional rights, including liberty, dignity, privacy, personal autonomy, and equality. [1] [2] [3]

Proceedings

On 6th February 2023, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, heard the petitioner's argument and issued notice to the respondents, including the State Government of Kerala. The Bench directed the parents of the alleged detainee to bring her before the Family Court in Kollam on February 8, 2023. Additionally, the Principal Judge of the Family Court was instructed to arrange an interview between the alleged detainee and Ms. Saleena V G Nair, a senior judicial officer from Kerala and a Member of the E-Committee of the Supreme Court. Ms. Saleena V G Nair was responsible for preparing a confidential report to determine the preferences of the alleged detainee and whether she resided with her parents voluntarily or was unlawfully detained after interacting with the detainee. Crucially, both the Principal Judge of the Family Court and Ms. Saleena V G Nair were responsible for ensuring that the detainee's statement was recorded without any coercion or duress from her parents, prioritizing a fair and unbiased process. [1] [2] [4] [6]

Interim Order

In consideration of the Kerala High Court's interim order from 13th January 2023, which directed the District Legal Services Authority to determine the legality of the alleged detainee's detention at the residence of the alleged detainers, as well as the petitioner's argument that the alleged detainee's statement recorded under the supervision of the alleged detainers would not effectively establish the legality of the detention, the Bench, on 6th February 2023, stayed the Kerala High Court Interim order from 13th January 2023 until the next day of the hearing of the special leave petition. [4] [6]

Additionally, in consideration of the Kerala High Court's interim order from 2nd January 2023, which directed the alleged detainee in a same-sex relationship to attend counseling sessions over the next four or five days, as well as the petitioner's argument that directing the alleged detainee to attend counseling sessions is fundamentally erroneous, the Bench, on 6th February 2023, stayed the Kerala High Court Interim order from 2nd January 2023 until the next day of the hearing of the special leave petition. [1] [2] [4] [6]

Finally, the Bench stayed further proceedings in the case before Kerala High Court until the next day of until the next day of the hearing of the special leave petition. [1] [2] [4] [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that foreign nationals held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could petition federal courts for writs of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention. The Court's 6–3 judgment on June 28, 2004, reversed a D.C. Circuit decision which had held that the judiciary has no jurisdiction to hear any petitions from foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the U.S. government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nasim Hasan Shah</span> Pakistani judge (1929–2015)

Nasim Hasan Shah was a Pakistani jurist and served as Chief Justice of Pakistan. He is best known for his role in the verdict against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, which resulted in the death penalty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fouzi Khalid Abdullah Al Odah</span> Kuwaiti former Guantanamo Bay detainee (born 1977)

Fouzi Khalid Abdullah Al Odah is a Kuwaiti citizen formerly held in the United States Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba. He had been detained without charge in Guantanamo Bay since 2002. He was a plaintiff in the ongoing case, Al Odah v. United States, which challenged his detention, along with that of fellow detainees. The case was widely acknowledged to be one of the most significant to be heard by the Supreme Court in the current term. The US Department of Defense reports that he was born in 1977, in Kuwait City, Kuwait.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ridah Bin Saleh Al Yazidi</span> Tunisian Guantanamo Bay detainee (born 1965)

Ridah Bin Saleh Bin Mabrouk al-Yazidi is a citizen of Tunisia held in extrajudicial detention in the United States Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba since the day it opened, on January 11, 2002. Al Yazidi's Guantanamo detainee ID number is 38.

Al Odah v. United States is a court case filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsels challenging the legality of the continued detention as enemy combatants of Guantanamo detainees. It was consolidated with Boumediene v. Bush (2008), which is the lead name of the decision.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's detention under color of law. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international human rights, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, including the right of petition for habeas corpus. On 19 February 2002, Guantanamo detainees petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs needed to meet. Further, the Court held that government officials are not liable for the actions of their subordinates without evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity. At issue was whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, were entitled to qualified immunity against an allegation that they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against Muslim men detained after the September 11 attacks. The decision also "transformed civil litigation in the federal courts" by making it much easier for courts to dismiss individuals' suits.

Al Joudi v. Bush (Civil Action No. 05-cv-301) is a United States District Court for the District of Columbia case. On February 9, 2005, a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on behalf of four Guantanamo detainees: Majid Abdulla Al Joudi, Yousif Mohammad Mubarak Al-Shehri, Abdulla Mohammad Al Ghanmi and Abdul-Hakim Abdul-Rahman Al-Moosa, before US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler. It was one of over 200 habeas corpus petitions filed in the US District Court on behalf of detainees held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, seeking release. On March 26, 2008, Judge Gladys Kessler dismissed the petition as moot.

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".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">MediaOne TV</span> Indian television news channel

MediaOne TV is an Indian Malayalam-language television channel operated by Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited. The channel was licensed in September 2011 and was officially launched on 10 February 2013. The main studio is located at Velliparamba, Kozhikode, Kerala.

K. M. Shaji is an Indian politician belonging to the Indian Union Muslim League. He is the president of Muslim Youth League in Kerala, a secretariat member of the League, and the treasurer of the Muslim League parliamentary party.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hadiya case</span> 2017–2018 Indian Supreme Court case

The Hadiya case was a 2017–2018 Indian Supreme Court case that affirmed the validity of the marriage of Hadiya and Shafin Jehan, which was challenged by Hadiya's family. Media outlets have described the underlying dispute as an allegation of "love jihad" conspiracy theory.

Kaleeswaram Raj is an Indian lawyer practising in the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Kerala. He has successfully argued for decriminalisation of the offence of adultery in India.

<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>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>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 5 6 7 8 9 10 Thomas, Abraham (7 February 2023). "Same-sex relationship: SC stays HC order for psychiatric counselling". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 7 February 2023.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 "SC stays Kerala High Court order directing girl in same-sex relationship to attend counselling sessions". ThePrint. 6 February 2023. Archived from the original on 9 February 2023.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 "Supreme Court Notice To Same-Sex Couple Who Challenged High Court Order". NDTV.com. 6 February 2023. Archived from the original on 6 February 2023.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Supreme Court stays Kerala HC order directing a woman in same-sex relationship to undergo counselling". SCC Blog. 8 February 2023.
  5. ↑ Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 28 of 2023 ( Kerala High Court 13 January 2023).
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Devu G v. State of Kerala, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 1891 of 2023 ( Supreme Court of India 6 February 2023).
  7. 1 2 "Lesbian couple row: Supreme Court stays Kerala HC's order sending woman for gender counselling". TimesNow. 8 February 2023. Archived from the original on 8 February 2023.
  8. ↑ Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 28 of 2023 ( Kerala High Court 31 January 2023).
  9. 1 2 3 Tripathi, Ashish. "SC stays Kerala HC order for counselling of woman in same-sex relationship". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 31 August 2023.
  10. ↑ Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 28 of 2023 ( Kerala High Court 2 February 2023).
  11. 1 2 3 Dalal, Dormaan Jamshid (11 October 2020). Indulia, Bhumika (ed.). "Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution and keeping the question of law open". SCC Blog.
  12. ↑ Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Shri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., 2019 INSC 298 ( Supreme Court of India 1 March 2019),archived from the original .
  13. ↑ Sir Chunilal V. Mehta And Sons, Ltd. versus The Century Spinning And Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 417 of 1957 ( Supreme Court of India 5 March 1962),archived from the original .
  14. ↑ State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money, Civil Appeals No. 933 and 934 of 1975 ( Supreme Court of India 16 January 1976),archived from the original .
  15. ↑ Sajeev, Upasana (10 June 2022). ""Conversion Therapy" For LGBTQ+ Persons Must Be Treated As Professional Misconduct: Madras High Court Directs National Medical Commission". www.livelaw.in.
  16. ↑ S Sushma v. Commissioner of Police , Writ Petition No. 7284 of 2021 ( Madras High Court 7 June 2021),archived from the original .
  17. ↑ Perappadan, Bindu Shajan (2022-09-02). "'Conversion therapy' is misconduct, declares National Medical Commission". The Hindu. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 2022-09-25.
  18. ↑ "Conversion therapy for LGBTQIA+ persons banned in India, medical council tells HC". The News Minute. 22 February 2022. Retrieved 5 October 2022.
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.