Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Last updated
Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Emblem of India.svg
Court Allahabad High Court
Full case name Sultana Mirza &Anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors.
Decided2 November 2020
Citation Writ-C No. 17394 of 2020
Court membership
Judges sittingShashi Kant Gupta J., Pankaj Bhatia 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 byShashi Kant Gupta J., Pankaj Bhatia J.
Keywords
Cohabitation Rights, Queer Relationships

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. [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

Sultana Mirza and her same-sex romantic partner have cohabited for several years, but their relationship has encountered opposition from both their family members and the broader community. 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]

Moreover, 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. [1] [2] [3]

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.

— Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh, pp. 4 of 5

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

Impact

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]

High Court Cases

This section delves into relevant cases from the High Courts of India. It's important to note that judgments rendered by one High Court do not hold mandatory authority over another, but they can still be regarded as influential precedents.

Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh

In the related case of Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), 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. In contrast to the Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the verdict in Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh explicitly highlight the entitlement of queer individuals in relationships to equal citizenship and protection under the law and reinforced the principle of non-discrimination. [3] [5] [6]

A two-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court, invoked the Supreme Court precedent set by Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) , 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. [5] [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

Section 377 is a British colonial penal code that 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 a Supreme Court Judgement since 2018, the 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 such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death.

<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.

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">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

<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>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>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>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>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>Chanchal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal</i>

Chanchal Bhattacharya versus State of West Bengal &Ors. (2015), a decision of the Calcutta High Court, asserts that individuals who have undergone gender-affirming surgery have a constitutional right to the recognition of their affirmed gender. The verdict emphasized the importance for educational and administrative institutions to adjust their records to reflect such changes, aiming to prevent inconvenience or discrimination.

<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 "Allahabad HC Asks Shamli SP To Give Protection To a Same-Sex Couple". The Wire. Retrieved 2021-06-09.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Quint, The (2020-11-04). "'Duty Bound': HC Asks Cops to Give Protection to Same-Sex Couple". TheQuint. Retrieved 2021-06-09.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sultana Mirza & Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., WRIT-C. No. 17394 of 2020( Allahabad High Court 2 November 2020), Text .
  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 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.
  6. 1 2 Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh , WRIT-C No. 1213 of 2021( Allahabad High Court 20 January 2021), 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.