Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police

Last updated

Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police
Emblem of India.svg
Court Kerala High Court
Full case name Sreeja S versus Commissioner of Police &Ors.
Decided24 September 2018
Citation W. P. (CRL) No. 372 of 2018
Court membership
Judges sittingC. K. Abdul Rehim CJ. and R. Narayana Pisharadi J.
Case opinions
The separating the adults in a consensual relationship is a violation of the Constitutional right, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Decision byC. K. Abdul Rehim CJ. and R. Narayana Pisharadi J.
Keywords
Cohabitation Rights, Queer Relationships

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. [1] [2] [3]

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. [4]

Background

The petitioner, Sreeja, a 40-year-old woman residing in Kollam, India, is engaged in a same-sex consensual relationship with the alleged detainee, Aruna, a 24-year-old woman. On August 13, 2018, Aruna left her parental home to live with Sreeja. Subsequently, Aruna's mother filed a missing person's complaint for Aruna with the sub-inspector of police in Parassala. Following this, the police took Aruna into custody and presented her before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court of Neyyattinkara on August 14, 2018. The magistrate ordered Aruna's release. [1] [2] [3]

However, Aruna's parents purportedly took her into custody again after allegedly assaulting Sreeja. Aruna informed Sreeja that her parents had admitted her to the Government Mental Health Center at Peroorkada. When Sreeja visited Aruna at the hospital, Aruna expressed her willingness to leave with Sreeja. Nonetheless, the hospital authorities insisted on the presentation of a court order for her release along with Aruna. In light of these circumstances, Sreeja filed a petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to command the production of Aruna and secure her freedom. [1] [2] [3]

Proceedings

In response to the court's notification, both Aruna and her parents appeared before the bench. During the proceedings, Aruna openly acknowledged her relationship with Sreeja and their mutual decision to live together. Aruna emphatically expressed her strong desire to accompany Sreeja to Sreeja's residence in West Kallada, Kollam. Aruna firmly stated her refusal to return to her parental home alongside her parents. Aruna's account highlighted that she believes her parents are unlawfully detaining her, and she was taken to the Government Mental Health Center in Peroorkada despite being in a sound mental state. [1] [2] [3]

Opinion of the Court

The bench drew upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018), wherein it was observed that the court cannot assume the role of parens patriae and curtail the liberty of an individual who has reached the age of majority. [1] [5] [6]

Similarly, the bench referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018), which firmly established that even if the parties are not legally competent to marry, they possess the right to cohabit even without formal wedlock. [1] [5] [7] The bench also highlighted the recognition of 'live-in relationships' by the Parliament of India under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005. [1] [5]

Furthermore, the bench cited Supreme Court's decision in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan (2018) , which emphasized the court's role in habeas corpus petitions to ascertain the independent choice of the detainee and to exercise caution in avoiding assessments of partner suitability for marital life. [1] [5] [8] The Bench noted the application of the cited precedents by the Kerala High Court in Mohammed Riyad v. State Police Chief (2018), wherein it was ruled that there's no requirement for the court to scrutinize the legality of the petitioner's relationship with the alleged detainee. [1] [5]

Finally, the Bench noted the Supreme Court's remarks in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) , where the Supreme Court emphasized that discriminating based on sexual orientation infringes upon the fundamental right, and asserted that constitutional morality should not be compromised for social morality. [1] [5]

The bench held that the cohabiting relationship between Sreeja and Aruna does not contravene any legal provisions or amount to a criminal offense, and abstaining from exercising the court's jurisdiction would risk the infringement of Constitutional rights. Therefore, the bench exercised its jurisdiction by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus, thereby granting Aruna the freedom to be with Sreeja according to her wishes. [1] [5]

Impact

Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police is the first Indian case concerning same-sex relationships after the Supreme Court's decriminalization of homosexuality in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) , which saw its ruling issued on the 17th day following the Navtej Singh Johar verdict. [2]

The Supreme Court of India acknowledged this case in its publication "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community," recognizing it as a significant High Court judgment that effectively addresses the difficulties encountered by marginalized queer individuals while navigating the justice system due to systemic marginalization. The publication highlighted the High Court's emphasis on women's consent and adulthood, asserting that it should not assume the role of parens patriae as long as individuals' choices are preserved. Additionally, the publication emphasized the High Court's stance that a 'live-in relationship' between two women is neither criminal nor illegal. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

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>Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) is a landmark Indian case decided by a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that treating consensual homosexual sex between adults as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's Constitution. The verdict resulted in the decriminalization of homosexual acts involving consenting adults throughout India. This was later overturned by the Supreme Court of India in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation, in which a 2 judge bench reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. However, even that was overturned by a 5 judge bench in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India in 2018, decriminalizing homosexuality once again.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Navtej Johar</span> Indian choreographer (born 1959)

Navtej Singh Johar is an Indian Sangeet Natak Akademi award-winning Bharatnatyam exponent and choreographer. He is also an LGBTQ activist.

<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>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.

<i>Puttaswamy v. Union of India</i> Indian Fundamental Rights Case Law

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. The original petitioner Justice K.S. Puttaswamy was former judge of the Karnataka High Court

<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".

<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>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.

<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>Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

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.

<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>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."

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

<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>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 11 Sreeja S versus Commissioner of Police &Ors., W. P. (Crl.) No. 372 of 2018 ( Kerala High Court 24 September 2018).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Ameerudheen, T. A. (26 September 2018). "Kerala lesbian couple that got court reprieve say they'll show society why its prejudices are wrong". Scroll.in. Retrieved 8 October 2022.
  3. 1 2 3 4 "Kerala high court lets lesbian couple live together | Kochi News - Times of India". The Times of India. TNN. 25 September 2018. Retrieved 8 October 2022.
  4. 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
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indulia, Bhumika (20 October 2018). "Live-in relationship of a lesbian couple is not violative of any law and is not a crime". SCC Blog. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
  6. ↑ Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas, Contempt Petition (Civil) Number 1606 of 2017 ( Supreme Court of India 5 January 2018).
  7. ↑ Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, 2018 INSC 383 ( Supreme Court of India 20 April 2018).
  8. ↑ Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., 2018 INSC 222 ( Supreme Court of India 08 March 2018).
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.