Rohit Sagar v. State of Uttarakhand | |
---|---|
Court | Uttarakhand High Court |
Full case name | Rohit Sagar &Anr. versus State of Uttarakhand &Ors. |
Decided | 16 December 2021 |
Citation | W. P. (CRL) No. 2254 of 2021 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | R. S. Chauhan CJ and N. S. Dhanik J |
Case opinions | |
The adults have a fundamental right to choose their own life-partners, despite the opposition voiced by the family members. | |
Decision by | R. S. Chauhan CJ and N. S. Dhanik J |
Keywords | |
Cohabitation Rights, Same-sex Relationship |
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. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Rohit Sagar and his partner Mohit Goyal, who are in a same-sex relationship, reside together in Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. However, they have faced resistance to their relationship from their respective families. Due to ongoing threats of serious repercussions from their family members, the couple lodged a formal complaint with both the Senior Superintendent of Police of Udham Singh Nagar district and the Station House Officer of Police Station No. 2, Rudrapur. However, as there has been no proactive action taken by the police authorities to safeguard the couple's lives and property, they have initiated a writ petition in the Uttarakhand High Court to seek a protective order. [1] [2] [3] [4]
The Bench upheld that adults who have attained the age of majority hold an inherent right to choose their life partners, even when confronted with objections from their families, and thus, the families of the couple should not be allowed to intimidate or harm the petitioners. Consequently, the Bench instructed the Senior Superintendent of Police for District Udham Singh Nagar to promptly ensure police protection for both the petitioners, encompassing not only their lives but also the safeguarding of their property. [1] [2] [3] [4]
The verdict of the Bench noticeably lacks legal precedents, thorough analysis, and comprehensive reasoning to substantiate its conclusions. [1] [2] [3] [4]
In the related 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. A two-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court, 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. [5] [6] In contrast to the case of Rohit Sagar v. State of Uttarakhand, the judgment in Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh explicitly references the constitutional right to privacy, providing added support for safeguarding against unwarranted intrusions, in addition to offering protection against physical threats and violations. [4] [5] [6] [7]
While ordering police protection for the couple, in contrast to the Rohit Sagar v. State of Uttarakhand case, the Bench in the Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh case drew upon the Supreme Court's precedent in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, acknowledging the tate's dual obligation pertaining to sexual orientation—preventing discrimination and actively safeguarding the rights of same-sex couples, thereby contributing to the formation of a consistent legal precedent concerning sexual orientation and rights. [4] [5] [6]
Kumaon is a revenue and administrative division in the Indian State of Uttarakhand. It spans over the eastern half of the state and is bounded on the north by Tibet, on the east by Nepal, on the south by the state of Uttar Pradesh, and on the west by Garhwal. Kumaon comprises six districts of the state: Almora, Bageshwar, Champawat, Nainital, Pithoragarh and Udham Singh Nagar.
Udham Singh Nagar is a district of Uttarakhand state in northern India. Rudrapur is the district headquarter. The district consists of nine Tehsils named Bajpur, Gadarpur, Jaspur, Kashipur, Khatima, Kichha, Nanakmatta, Rudrapur, Sitarganj. The district is located in the Terai region, and is part of Kumaon Division. It is bounded on the north by Nainital District, on the northeast by Champawat District, on the east by Nepal, and on the south and west by Bareilly, Rampur, Moradabad, Pilibhit and Bijnor District of Uttar Pradesh state. The district was created on 29 September 1995, by Mayawati government out of Nainital District. It is named for freedom fighter and Indian revolutionary Udham Singh.
Narayan Datt Tiwari was an Indian politician who served as the 9th Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and 3rd Chief Minister of Uttarakhand from 2002 to 2007. He was first Indian Chief Minister who served for two states. He was formerly in the Praja Socialist Party and later joined the Indian National Congress. He also joined the BJP in 2017.
The Uttarakhand High Court is the High Court of the state of Uttarakhand in India. The Uttarakhand High Court was established on 9 November 2000 after the separation of the state of Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh.
Rudrapur is a city that serves as the headquarters of the Udham Singh Nagar district in the Indian state of Uttarakhand. Located at a distance of about 250 km (160 mi) northeast of New Delhi and 250 km (160 mi) south of Dehradun, Rudrapur is located in the fertile Terai plains in the southern part of Kumaon division over an area of 27.65 km2. With a population of 140,857 according to the 2011 census of India, it is the 5th most populous city of Uttarakhand.
Sitarganj is a city and a municipal board in Udham Singh Nagar district in the Indian state of Uttarakhand. Now it is home to the Integrated Industrial Estate Sitarganj (IIE) being developed by State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited (SIDCUL).
Sultanpur is a town in Udham Singh Nagar district in the Indian state of Uttarakhand. It is located approximately 15 kilometres from Kashipur and 42 kilometers from Rudrapur.
The Rampur Tiraha firing case refers to police firing on unarmed Uttarakhand statehood activists at Rampur Tiraha (crossing) in Muzaffarnagar district in Uttar Pradesh in India on the night of 2 October 1994.
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".
Vijay Bahuguna is an Indian politician who served as the 6th Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. He is the eldest son of Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna, an independence activist and politician, and also a former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Vijay Bahuguna was a member of the 14th and 15th Lok Sabhas of India. He represented the Tehri Garhwal constituency of Uttarakhand and is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Prafulla Chandra Pant is an Indian judge and author who served as a judge of the Supreme Court of India from 2014 to 2017. He later served as a member of the National Human Rights Commission of India from 2019 to 2021, and briefly acted as its chairperson. Prior to his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of India, he had previously served as chief justice of the Meghalaya High Court at Shillong and as a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.