Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum v. State of Karnataka

Last updated

Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum v. State of Karnataka
Emblem of India.svg
Court Karnataka High Court
Full case name Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum versus State of Karnataka &Ors.
Decided6 February 2017
Citation 2017:KHC:3031-DB
Court membership
Judges sitting Subhro Kamal Mukherjee CJ. and Budihal R.B J.
Case opinions
Since the provision that exhibited discriminatory targeting towards transgender individuals was revised to eliminate the term 'eunuchs,' the writ petition was resolved and dismissed.
Decision by Subhro Kamal Mukherjee CJ. and Budihal R.B J.
Keywords
Criminal Stereotyping, Institutional Discrimination, Intersex Rights, Non-binary Gender Rights, Transgender Rights

Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum versus State of Karnataka &Ors. (2017), a case of the Karnataka High Court, which resulted in an amendment of Section 36A of the Karnataka Police Act, which categorized the intersex, non-binary gender and transgender individuals as predisposed to criminal activity. [1] [2]

Contents

The replacement of the term 'eunuch' with 'persons' has garnered criticism for substantially broadening the possible applicability of the law, even as the oppressive structure of the law remains unchanged. [1] [3] [4]

Background

During British rule in India, intersex, non-binary gender and transgender individuals were referred to as 'eunuchs' in a stigmatizing manner. The British introduced discriminatory laws based on gender identity, including an 1897 amendment that added 'eunuchs' to the Criminal Tribes Act of 1873, an Act that presumed certain communities were predisposed to criminal activity. The amendment introduced a separate section for 'eunuchs', defining them as impotent males. They were mandated to register with local authorities and faced restrictions on acting as guardians for minors, executing gifts or wills, and adopting sons, with violations carrying the risk of imprisonment. They were prohibited from 'dressing like a woman' in public, engaging in dance, and partaking in public exhibitions. [3] [5]

While the Criminal Tribes Act was repealed in 1949, similar language persisted in other laws to control and surveil transgender individuals. The present case pertains to Section 36A of the Karnataka Police Act of 1963, which replaced the Hyderabad Eunuchs Act of 1329 Fasli, a 1919 act inherited from the former State of Hyderabad and remaining in effect in the Gulbarga Region of Karnataka. [3] [5] [6] [7] Section 36A grants the police commissioner the authority to curb 'undesirable activities of eunuchs' and permits the maintenance of a register detailing the names and residences of 'eunuchs' suspected of engaging in activities such as 'kidnapping and emasculating boys' or of committing 'unnatural offences' or abetting the commission of such offences. [5] [6] [8]

The petitioners have contested the constitutionality of Section 36A of the Karnataka Police Act, asserting that it is in violation of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. [6]

Proceedings

Relying on the precedent set by the case National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) , wherein non-binary gender identities were legally recognized, and the fundamental rights of intersex, non-gender binary, and transgender individuals were upheld under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, the Petitioners argue against the constitutionality of Section 36A of the Karnataka Police Act. They contend that this section contravenes Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. [6]

The Counsel for the State Government of Karnataka stated the willingness of the State Government to amend Section 36A. On 12 January 2016, the Bench noted the stance of the State Government and granted the State Government a six-month period to present the amended section to the Court. [6]

On 3 February 2017, the State Government's Counsel acknowledged that Section 36A discriminatorily targeted transgender individuals and submitted that the section has been amended to remove the term 'eunuchs.' [6] [9] [10]

Opinion of the Court

After the State Government of Karnataka informed that the disputed Section 36A of the Karnataka Police Act has been amended to eliminate the term 'eunuchs,' the Bench concluded the writ petition. [2] [6] [9] [10]

The interim order and the judgment of the Bench noticeably lack a comparative analysis of the challenged Section 36A with Sections 24 to 37 of the repealed Criminal Tribes Act of 1873. [9] [11] This omission holds particular significance, given that the binding precedent cited by the petitioners, National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) , underscored the adverse impact of the Criminal Tribes Act on intersex, non-gender binary, and transgender individuals. [12] [13]

Compliance

Section 36A of the Karnataka Police Act underwent an amendment through the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act of 2016, wherein the term "eunuch" was replaced with "person". The Amendment Act received the Governor's assent on 26 July 2016 and was subsequently published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary on 27 July 2016. [1] [2] [10]

After the replacement of the term 'eunuch' with 'persons,' Section 36A of the Karnataka Police Act authorizes the police commissioner to take action against 'persons' involved in 'emasculating boys' and committing 'unnatural offenses,' an outcome that broadened the scope of application of provision while retaining the potential risks associated with its existence in the legal framework. [8] Consequently, the move has attracted criticism from human rights lawyers specializing in transgender rights. [1]

Jessica Bridgette Hinchy, a historian specializing in colonial governance and law, criticized the alteration of the term, asserting that the change has essentially expanded the potential applicability of the law. [3] Ramya Jawahar, a Human Rights lawyer, highlighted that merely substituting the term 'eunuch' will not rectify the underlying problematic nature of Section 36A, which poses harm to the transgender community. She stated that the invocation of Section by the police will still disproportionately impact the transgender community, along with an even broader group of individuals. [1] [4] Gowthaman Ranganathan, a lawyer specializing in Human Rights and Comparative Constitutional Law, stated that he advocates for the full repeal of Section 36A, which essentially resembles an extension of the abolished Criminal Tribes Act of 1873. He noted that the revisions made are of a minor nature and anything less than a complete repeal remains entirely unacceptable because it constitutes a violation of transgender rights and the principle of equality. [1]

Jayna Kothari and Diksha Sanyal acknowledged that the amendment merely creates a superficially neutral appearance for the provision, while retaining the oppressive framework of the law. Nevertheless, they view this as a significant milestone for transgender rights, marking the first instance of legislative amendment of a legal provision directed against sexual minorities in India. [14]

High Court cases

This section delves into relevant cases from the High Courts of India. Judgments rendered by one High Court do not hold mandatory authority over another, but they can still be regarded as influential precedents.

Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli v. State of Telangana

The subsequent case of Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli v. State of Telangana (2023) in the Telangana High Court challenged the constitutionality of the Telangana Eunuchs Act of 1329 Fasli, a legislative provision akin to Section 36A of the Karnataka Police Act of 1963, which was contested in the case of Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum v. State of Karnataka. Both provisions, Section 36A of the Karnataka Police Act and the Telangana Eunuchs Act, share a common historical foundation, language, and legal provisions, as their establishment is rooted in a shared approach that originated the British colonial-era Criminal Tribes Act of 1873. These provisions were enacted with the intent and purpose of enforcing control and surveillance over transgender individuals. [3] [5] [6] [15]

While the Karnataka High Court addressed and dismissed the case of Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum v. State of Karnataka, following an amendment by the State Government of Karnataka that replaced the term 'eunuch' with 'persons,' the Telangana High Court invalidated the Telangana Eunuchs Act, for violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. [6] [15] [16]

The Telangana High Court conducted a comparative analysis and determined that the provisions of the Telangana Eunuchs Act are analogous to the provisions found in Sections 24 to 37 of the Criminal Tribes Act. The court observed that the Criminal Tribes Act, a notably oppressive colonial legislation, classified various tribal groups, including 'eunuchs', as criminal tribes, and subjected them to continuous surveillance and societal stigmatization as criminals. The court observed that while the Criminal Tribes Act has been repealed by the Union Government, the analogous Telangana Eunuchs Act had remained in effect until the court stayed its implementation on 18 September 2018. [15] [16] [17]

The Telangana High Court, drawing on Supreme Court precedents such as National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) , Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) , and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) , reached the conclusion that the Telangana Eunuchs Act, which categorized the entire 'eunuchs' community as predisposed to criminal activity, is not only arbitrary and unreasonable, but also manifestly arbitrary. As a result, the court invalidated the Telangana Eunuchs Act on the grounds that it infringes upon the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14, as well as the right to dignity and privacy guaranteed under Article 21. [15] [16] [17]

It is significant to note that the Telangana High Court, in contrast to the Karnataka High Court, engaged in a comparative analysis of the disputed provisions alongside the British colonial-era Criminal Tribes Act, leading to the identification of their analogy and consequent invalidation of the contested provisions. [6] [15] [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Human Rights Commission of India</span> Indian government agency in charge of protecting human rights

The National Human Rights Commission of India is a statutory body constituted on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Ordinance of 28 September 1993. It was given a statutory basis by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA). The NHRC is responsible for the protection and promotion of human rights, defined by the act as "Rights Relating To Life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the constitution or embodied in the international covenants and enforceable by courts in India".

Human rights in India is an issue complicated by the country's large size and population as well as its diverse culture, despite its status as the world's largest sovereign, secular, socialist democratic republic. The Constitution of India provides for fundamental rights, which include freedom of religion. Clauses also provide for freedom of speech, as well as separation of executive and judiciary and freedom of movement within the country and abroad. The country also has an independent judiciary as well as bodies to look into issues of human rights.

Reservation is a system of affirmative action in India created during the British rule. Based on provisions in the Indian Constitution, it allows the Union Government and the States and Territories of India to set a percentage of reserved quotas or seats, in higher education admissions, employment, political bodies, etc., for "socially and economically backward citizens".

The Fundamental Rights in India enshrined in part III of the Constitution of India guarantee civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These rights are known as "fundamental" as they are the most essential for all-round development i.e., material, intellectual, moral and spiritual and protected by fundamental law of the land i.e. constitution. If the rights provided by Constitution especially the Fundamental rights are violated the Supreme Court and the High Courts can issue writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively, directing the State Machinery for enforcement of the fundamental rights.

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 was enacted by the Parliament of India to prevent atrocities and hate crimes against the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. In popular usage, including in parliamentary debates and in the judgements of the Supreme Court of India, this law is referred to as the SC/ST Act. It is also referred to as the 'Atrocities Act', POA, and PoA.

<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.

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

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Sri Lanka face significant challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act</span> Indian law to prevent unlawful activities

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is an Indian law aimed at the prevention of unlawful activities associations in India. Its main objective was to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. The most recent amendment of the law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 has made it possible for the Union Government to designate individuals as terrorists without following any formal judicial process. UAPA is also known as the "Anti-terror law".

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

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Zambia face significant challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is illegal for both men and women in Zambia. Formerly a colony of the British Empire, Zambia inherited the laws and legal system of its colonial occupiers upon independence in 1964. Laws concerning homosexuality have largely remained unchanged since then, and homosexuality is covered by sodomy laws that also proscribe bestiality. Social attitudes toward LGBT people are mostly negative and coloured by perceptions that homosexuality is immoral and a form of insanity. However, in recent years, younger generations are beginning to show positive and open minded attitudes towards their LGBT peers.

<i>Toonen v. Australia</i> Court case

Toonen v. Australia was a landmark human rights complaint brought before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) by Tasmanian resident Nicholas Toonen in 1994. The case resulted in the repeal of Australia's last sodomy laws when the Committee held that sexual orientation was included in the antidiscrimination provisions as a protected status under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sodomy law</span> Laws criminalising certain sexual acts

A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood and defined by many courts and jurisdictions to include any or all forms of sexual acts that are illegal, illicit, unlawful, unnatural and immoral. Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex, manual sex, and bestiality. In practice, sodomy laws have rarely been enforced to target against sexual activities between individuals of the opposite sex, and have mostly been used to target against sexual activities between individuals of the same sex.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Tribes Act</span> Legislation in British India

Since the 1870s, various pieces of colonial legislation in India during British rule were collectively called the Criminal Tribes Act (CTA). This criminalised entire communities by designating them as habitual criminals.

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">LGBT rights in Saint Kitts and Nevis</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Saint Kitts and Nevis face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. In 2022, Saint Kitts and Nevis rescinded its criminalization of homosexuality. However, the national penal code does not address discrimination or harassment on the account of sexual orientation or gender identity, nor does the law recognize same sex unions in any form, whether it be marriage or partnerships. Households headed by same-sex couples are also not eligible for any of the same rights given to opposite-sex married couples.

<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">Bengaluru Namma Pride March</span> Annual queer pride march in Karnataka, India

Bengaluru Namma Pride March is a queer pride march that is held annually in the city of Bengaluru in Karnataka, India, since 2008. The march is organised by a coalition called Coalition for Sex Workers and Sexuality Minority Rights (CSMR). The pride march is preceded by a month of queer related events and activities.

<i>Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Suresh Kumar Koushal &Anr. v. NAZ Foundation &Ors.(2013) is a case in which a 2 judge Supreme Court bench consisting of G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya overturned the Delhi High Court case Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court of India decided to revisit this judgement after several curative petitions were filed against it, in 2017. Thereby in 2018, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, a 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned this judgement, decriminalizing homosexuality. Portions of Section 377 relating to sex with minors, non-consensual sexual acts such as rape, and bestiality remain in force.

Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code criminalizes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" and provides for a penalty of up to ten years in prison.

Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli is an Indian transgender activist, RTI activist, singer and motivational speaker. She intervened in the “Suresh Kumar Kaushal & Other vs Naz Foundation & Others” case in the Supreme Court in 2014 in which she highlighted the deleterious effects of conversion or reparative therapy on queer people through her affidavit.

Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli &Ors. versus State of Telangana &Ors. (2023), a landmark decision of Telangana High Court, invalidating the Telangana Eunuchs Act of 1329 Fasli which categorized intersex, non-binary gender, and transgender individuals as susceptible to criminal actions, as it was found to be in violation of the constitution.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "No more 'eunuchs', they'll be referred to as 'persons'". The Times of India. 16 July 2016. ISSN   0971-8257 . Retrieved 22 August 2023.
  2. 1 2 3 "Govt to HC: word 'eunuch' removed from Police Act". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 22 August 2023.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Hinchy, Jessica Bridgette (2 July 2019). "The long history of criminalising Hijras". Himal Southasian. Archived from the original on 9 July 2019.
  4. 1 2 "Karnataka govt deletes 'eunuchs' from police records". The Times of India. 15 July 2016. ISSN   0971-8257 . Retrieved 24 August 2023.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Kothari, Jayna (2019). "Section 377 and Beyond: A New Era for Transgender Equality?" (PDF). In Meinardus, Ronald (ed.). How liberal is India? the quest for freedom in the biggest democracy on earth. New Delhi: Academic Foundation. ISBN   978-93-327-0507-4. Archived from the original on 27 July 2021. Retrieved 22 August 2023.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 "Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum vs State of Karnataka & Ors". Centre for Law & Policy Research. Retrieved 22 August 2023.
  7. ↑ Karnataka Repealing and Amending (Regional Laws) Act (PDF) (26). Karnataka Legislature. 2011.
  8. 1 2 "Karnataka Trans Policy May Be a Step in the Right Direction, But Needs Work". The Wire. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  9. 1 2 3 Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum v. State of Karnataka, 2017:KHC:3031-DB ( Karnataka High Court 6 February 2016).
  10. 1 2 3 Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act (PDF) (22). Karnataka Legislature. 2016.
  11. ↑ Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum v. State of Karnataka,Writ Petition No. 1397 of 2015( Karnataka High Court 12 January 2016).
  12. ↑ National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India , 2014 INSC 275 , para. 81 and 110( Supreme Court of India 15 April 2014).
  13. ↑ Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli v. State of Telangana , Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 44 of 2018 , para. 46 and 47( Telangana High Court 6 July 2023).
  14. ↑ Kothari, Jayna; Sanyal, Diksha. "Courts Recognizing Transgender Rights". Oxford Human Rights Hub. Archived from the original on 21 June 2017. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 "Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli & Ors. v. State of Telangana". Centre for Law & Policy Research. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  16. 1 2 3 4 Sasikumar, Meenakshy (10 July 2023). "Telangana High Court Scraps 'Unconstitutional' Eunuchs Act: Here's Why It Needed To Go". TheQuint. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  17. 1 2 Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli v. State of Telangana , Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 44 of 2018 ( Telangana High Court 6 July 2023).
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.