The Madras High Court has made a significant observation regarding the rights of same-sex couples in India, stating that while the Supreme Court has not legalized same-sex marriages, such couples can still be recognized as a family. This ruling came from a division bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan while they were hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking the release of her partner, who she alleged was being held against her will by her parents.
The court emphasized that the term "family" should be understood in an expanded sense, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India (2023). While the apex court stopped short of legalizing same-sex marriage, the Madras High Court bench highlighted that this does not preclude same-sex individuals from forming a family unit. They further stated that marriage is not the only way to found a family, and that the concept of a "chosen family" is now well-established and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.
The case before the court involved a 25-year-old lesbian woman who was allegedly being detained and harassed by her family due to her sexual orientation. The woman's partner filed a habeas corpus petition seeking her release. The court interacted with the detained woman, who confirmed that she was in a same-sex relationship and had been forcibly taken home, beaten, and subjected to rituals aimed at "normalizing" her. She expressed her desire to return to her partner.
The court acknowledged the conservative mindset that still prevails in society, but also underscored that the woman, being an adult, has the right to make her own choices. Referring to the Yogyakarta Principles, which affirm the right to security for LGBTQIA+ individuals, the court reaffirmed that such individuals are entitled to the same dignity, rights, and recognition as others. The Yogyakarta Principles are a set of international human rights principles related to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Madras High Court also took note of a previous decision where it had approved a "Deed of Familial Association" to formally acknowledge the union of LGBTQIA+ individuals in the absence of legal marriage. In the present case, the court censured the jurisdictional police for failing to respond to the petitioner's SOS messages and ignoring her formal complaints about illegal detention. The court also noted that the police had forced the detenu to go with her parents. It held that government officials, particularly the jurisdictional police, have a duty to respond expeditiously and appropriately whenever complaints of this nature are received from members of the LGBTQIA+ community. The court restrained the detenu's family from interfering with her personal liberty and issued a writ of continuing mandamus to the jurisdictional police to afford adequate protection to the detenu and her partner.
Furthermore, the bench expressed discomfort with the use of the word "queer" to identify non-heterosexual individuals, suggesting that the term, which can mean "strange" or "odd," might not be appropriate, as a homosexual individual's sexual orientation is perfectly natural and normal to them.
