Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court	Allahabad High Court
Full case name	Poonam Rani &Anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors.
Decided	20 January 2021
Citation(s)	Writ-C No. 1213 of 2021
Court membership
Judges sitting	Mahesh Chandra Tripathi J., Sanjay Kumar Pachori J.
Case opinions
	The Constitutional Court, is duty-bound to monitor and observe Constitutional morality, as well as the rights of citizens that are under threat solely due to sexual orientation.
Decision by	Mahesh Chandra Tripathi J., Sanjay Kumar Pachori J.
Keywords
	Cohabitation Rights, Queer Relationships

Last updated May 06, 2024

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.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Background

Poonam Rani and her same-sex partner have been living together for several years, but their relationship has faced resistance from their respective families, who have used threats to intimidate the couple They claimed that their relationship is facing resistance from the family members and the immediate society. Consequently, the couple fear potential harassment and threats that could jeopardize their safety and ability to enjoy their same-sex relationship and filed a writ petition for protection order.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Opinion of the Court

The Bench, guided by the Supreme Court's precedent in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) , noted that sexual orientation constitutes an inherent aspect of the constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, privacy, personal autonomy, and equality. The Bench further observed that the state bears both negative and positive obligations with regard to sexual orientation, encompassing not only refraining from discrimination but also recognizing and upholding rights that contribute to authentic well-being within same-sex relationships.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Acknowledging the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Bench highlighted that individuals belonging to the queer community possess the same constitutional rights as all other citizens, encompassing protected liberties and equal citizenship, devoid of discrimination, and ensuring equal protection under the law. The Bench further noted that the freedom to select a partner, the capacity to derive satisfaction from intimate relationships, and the entitlement to be free from discriminatory conduct are inherent aspects of the constitutional protection of sexual orientation.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Moreover, the Bench reiterated the precedent set by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020).

This Court, being a Constitutional Court, is duty bound to monitor and observe Constitutional morality, as well as the rights of citizens that are under threat only on account of sexual orientation.
— Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, pp. 2 of 3

The Bench issued a directive to the Senior Superintendent of Police in Saharanpur, instructing them to furnish essential protection and ensure the prevention of any form of harassment against the couple.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Related Cases

High Court Cases

Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh

In the preceding case of Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) , a same-sex couple residing together, approached the Allahabad High Court seeking protection against threat to their life and liberty by family members and the immediate society. Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh takes an additional stride by overtly asserting that these individuals hold equivalent constitutional rights as all citizens, safeguarding them against discrimination and unequal treatment, and underscoring the importance of the freedom to select a partner and partake in intimate relationships, regardless of their sexual orientation; however, in contrast to Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the judgment in Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh lacks a comprehensive consideration of Constitutional morality.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

In the case of Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the bench drew upon the insights of the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), regarding Constitutional morality. Constitutional morality mandates that citizens should be well-acquainted with and supportive of the fundamental values of the Constitution, which include liberty, equality, and fraternity, as these ethical principles underpin the overarching goals of the Constitution. It is of paramount importance to acknowledge that the integration of constitutional morality occurs progressively and may continue over time in a society, and in order to foster this advancement, constitutional courts are entrusted with the responsibility of acting as external facilitators. The duty of the constitutional courts encompasses the oversight of upholding constitutional morality, a role essential for fostering an environment that supports the advancement of human dignity and liberty.^[4]^[5]

Related Research Articles

Section 377 of the British colonial penal code criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per Supreme Court Judgement since 2018, Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar. In 2018, then British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and death.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in India have expanded in the 21st century, though much of India's advancements on LGBT rights have come from the judiciary and not the legislature. Indian LGBT citizens still face social and legal difficulties not experienced by non-LGBT people.

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".

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya is a former justice of the Supreme Court of India. He was also chair of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal from 1 June 2016 to 14 March 2020. He previously served as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court and also served as acting Chief Justice at the Jharkhand High Court and the Madras High Court.

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.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. (2017), also known as the Right to Privacy verdict, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, which holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Saurabh Kirpal is an Indian lawyer, author and a senior advocate at the Delhi High Court. He is also an LGBTQ rights activist.

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.

Supriyo a.k.a Supriya Chakraborty & Abhay Dang v. Union of India thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice & other connected cases (2023) are a collection of landmark cases of the Supreme Court of India, which were filed to consider whether to extend right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India. A five-judge Constitution Bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice S.R Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha, heard 20 connected cases brought by 52 petitioners.

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.

References

1 2 3 4 5 "Poonam Rani v. State of UP". South Asian Translaw Database. Retrieved 2021-06-09.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Upadhyay, Sparsh (2021-01-28). "Same-Sex Couple Facing Discrimination:Allahabad High Court Calls It 'Stark Reality Of Society', Grants Them Protection". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2021-06-09.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, WRIT-C No. 1213 of 2021( Allahabad High Court 20 January 2021), Text .
1 2 "Allahabad HC Asks Shamli SP To Give Protection To a Same-Sex Couple". The Wire. Retrieved 2021-06-09.
1 2 Sultana Mirza & Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., WRIT-C. No. 17394 of 2020( Allahabad High Court 2 November 2020), Text .

External links

Poonam Rani & Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., WRIT-C. No. 1213 of 2021( Allahabad High Court ), Text .

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.

[:1-1] 1 2 3 4 5 "Poonam Rani v. State of UP". South Asian Translaw Database. Retrieved 2021-06-09.

[:2-2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 Upadhyay, Sparsh (2021-01-28). "Same-Sex Couple Facing Discrimination:Allahabad High Court Calls It 'Stark Reality Of Society', Grants Them Protection". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2021-06-09.

[:0-3] 1 2 3 4 5 6 Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, WRIT-C No. 1213 of 2021( Allahabad High Court 20 January 2021), Text .

[:12-4] 1 2 "Allahabad HC Asks Shamli SP To Give Protection To a Same-Sex Couple". The Wire. Retrieved 2021-06-09.

[:02-5] 1 2 Sultana Mirza & Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., WRIT-C. No. 17394 of 2020( Allahabad High Court 2 November 2020), Text .

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]