XYZ v. State of Maharashtra

Last updated

XYZ v. State of Maharashtra
Emblem of India.svg
Court Bombay High Court
Full case nameXYZ &Anr. versus State of Maharashtra &Ors.
DecidedTBA
Citation(s)C.W.P. No. 11737 of 2023
Court membership
Judges sitting Revati Mohite Dere, J. and Gauri Godse J.
Case opinions
Decision by Revati Mohite Dere J. and Gauri Godse J.
Keywords
Cohabitation Rights, Queer Relationships, Police Misconduct

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. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

The first petitioner, aged 28, holds dual degrees and is not a resident of Maharashtra. The second petitioner, a 32-year-old hospital worker, resides in Maharashtra. Having met on social media in 2020, the petitioners are engaged in a consensual same-sex relationship and have chosen to live together. The first petitioner, of her own volition, left her home to cohabit with the second petitioner in Maharashtra. It's worth noting that the first petitioner had previously attempted to live with the second petitioner but was compelled to return home by her parents. Emphasizing their status as adults, the petitioners highlight the importance of respecting their consensual relationship and request for the right to live free from police intervention or parental interference. [2] [3] [4]

The petitioners sought directives from the Bench to secure suitable protection for one of them, aiming to safeguard her life, liberty, and dignity, while also requesting that no coercive measures be taken against the petitioner. [2] [3] [4]

Proceedings

On 5 July 2023, the petitioners requested directives from the Bench to ensure adequate protection for one of them, aiming to safeguard her life, liberty, and dignity, while also making a plea to avoid any coercive actions against the petitioner.In response, the Maharashtra Police assured to provide protection by assigning a plainclothes constable to the same-sex couple, who had expressed concerns about potential threats from one partner's family. [2] [4]

On 28 July 2023, the petitioners' counsel urged the court to establish guidelines for the police in handling cases involving queer individuals. This includes situations where missing person complaints are filed or when allegations of kidnapping or false imprisonment are raised by family members or relatives of queer individuals. Furthermore, the petitioners' counsel also sought the issuance of guidelines to prison authorities for cases involving jail inmates from the queer community. [2] [4] [5]

On 11 August 2023, the bench made verbal reference to the guidelines set forth in the case of S Sushma v. Commissioner of Police , which are designed to safeguard same-sex couples from police harassment, along with the directives within the same case that urged the State Government of Tamil Nadu to introduce sensitization programs across various departments within the state. The bench proposed that the State Government of Maharashtra contemplate amending the rules for the police conduct in a manner similar to those in Tamil Nadu. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bombay High Court</span> Common High court of the Indian states of Maharashtra and Goa

The High Court of Bombay is the high court of the states of Maharashtra and Goa in India, and the union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. It is seated primarily at Mumbai, and is one of the oldest high courts in India. The High Court has circuit benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad in Maharashtra and Panaji, the capital of Goa.

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term coram nobis is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the courts of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

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.

Homosexuality in India is legally permitted and tolerated by the most of the traditional native philosophies of the nation, and legal rights continue to be advanced in mainstream politics and regional politics. Homosexual cohabitation is also legally permitted and comes with some legal protections and rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT culture in India</span>

India's LGBTQ culture has recently progressed in its cities due to the growing acceptance of the LGBTQ community in urban India in the 21st century.

<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.

Anuja Prabhudessai is a judge of the Bombay High Court, in Maharashtra, India. She is the first woman from Goa to be a High Court judge in India.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh is a sitting Judge of the Madras High Court.

<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>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>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>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>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.

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.

Ravi Kant is an Indian Supreme Court advocate and president of the anti-trafficking non-governmental organization Shakti Vahini, named after the Hindu mother goddess who fought injustice.

References

  1. "HC asks IG Prisons to suggest measures to end discrimination of LGBTQIA+ individuals in prisons". The Hindu. 28 July 2023. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 15 August 2023.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "LGBTQIA+ community cases: HC suggests panel to form guidelines on sensitising police, Maharashtra says will consider". The Indian Express. 11 August 2023. Retrieved 15 August 2023.
  3. 1 2 XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 11737 of 2023 ( Bombay High Court 4 July 2023).
  4. 1 2 3 4 XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 11737 of 2023 ( Bombay High Court 5 July 2023).
  5. XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 11737 of 2023 ( Bombay High Court 28 July 2023).