New Delhi: After undergoing a self-imposed “psycho-education” to understand same-sex relationships as well as interacting with members of the LGBTQ community, Madras High Court judge Justice N. Anand Venkatesh Monday issued guidelines to protect gay couples from police harassment.
Venkatesh took up the counselling sessions as he heard a case pertaining to a lesbian couple who sought protection from their families. Facing resistance and pressure from their parents, the two Madurai-based women — both adults — went to Chennai, where they are under the care of an NGO. Their parents subsequently filed a missing persons complaint.
In hearings earlier this year, Venkatesh admitted he wasn’t “fully woke” on the subject of same-sex relationships and proceeded to delve deep into the issues concerning the LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-sexual, queer, intersex, asexual/agender, and others) community.
The guidelines issued by the judge seek to address the prejudices that exist against members of the LGBTQIA+ community as a result of society’s ignorance.
For one, he has directed that when police receive any missing persons cases that turn out to involve consenting adults belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community, they should take their statements and, after establishing the consent issue, close the complaint without subjecting them to any harassment.
The court has also asked the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to periodically publish a list of NGOs with sufficient expertise in handling the issues faced by the LGBTQIA+ community. People from the community can approach these NGOs for “safeguarding and protecting their rights”, the judge said.
Additionally, the ministry has been asked to make adequate infrastructural arrangements in stay homes, anganwadi shelters, and “garima greh (a shelter home for transgender persons)”, within 12 weeks, to accommodate members of the LGBTQIA+ community who might require accommodation.
The central and state governments have been asked to devise “such other measures that are needed for eliminating prejudices against the LGBTQIA+ community”, and take steps for “channelising them back into the mainstream”.
The court has also suggested sensitisation programmes to be conducted by different ministries of the central and state governments, including for police and prison authorities, members of the judiciary, physical and mental health professionals, educational institutions and health workers.
Justice Venkatesh has copied his entire counselling report dated 7 May in the order. The report notes that the judge “came in with the awareness of the prejudice he holds”, and that a “major part of the session addressed the problematic binary understanding of sex, gender and sexuality”.
The report acknowledged several misconceptions and prejudices against same-sex relationships, and about Justice Venkatesh’s own attempts to reach a better understanding of such relationships.
It quoted Justice Venkatesh as saying, “I am the society, with all the misconceptions present. Now I’m working through it and engaging the process of unlearning, so it is me who needs to convey this understanding to the rest of the society that stands where I once stood.”
Also Read: It’s Pride Month and on Netflix, Hotstar, LGBTQ stories are growing. Here’s a checkout list
Interactions with LGBTQIA+ community
After the counselling session, Justice Venkatesh also interacted with people belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community to understand the “ground realities, the emotions, social discrimination and exclusion, and several other difficulties faced by the community”. This included interactions with digital content creator and MBBS intern Dr Trinetra Haldar Gummaraju, a transwoman.
Gummaraju’s report on this interaction is part of the court order. The report ends with a vote of confidence in “his ally ship and support to the LGBTQIA+ community to deliver an order that effectively safeguards the rights and freedoms of this vulnerable population”.
Justice Venkatesh said this session convinced him to change his preconceived notions, adding that Gummaraju as well as his counsellor became his “gurus who helped me in this process of evolution and pulled me out of darkness (ignorance)”.
He went on to elaborately talk about his own understanding of where his prejudices came from, and how he has worked to overcome them, acknowledging that “the society and my upbringing have always treated the terms “homosexual”, “gay”, “lesbian” as “anathema”.
He emphasised the need for change “at a societal level” but said he hopes “that the legislature also starts evincing more interest on this very important issue”.
Since there is no law for the community’s protection currently, the court went on to issue some guidelines for the authorities. “Till the legislature comes up with an enactment, the LGBTQIA+ community cannot be left in a vulnerable atmosphere where there is no guarantee for their protection and safety,” he said.
The case has been kept pending for regular monitoring and follow-up with various departments. The matter will come up next on 31 August.
Also Read: Where are India’s queer parents? Having a family is not even an option for many Indians
‘Not fully woke’
The petitioners in the case are a 22-year-old BSc Mathematics graduate and a 20-year-old BA Tamil student. The duo has known each other for two years now and told the court they wanted to be together. Both have been facing resistance from their respective families.
In an order passed on 29 March, Justice Venkatesh said he is trying to break his “own preconceived notions about this issue” and is “in the process of evolving”. He proceeded to say that he is “trying to develop this case brick by brick”.
The court had also referred the women as well as their parents to a counsellor who specialises in working with LGBTQIA+ individuals. “This move becomes very vital since this court is moving into unchartered (sic) waters, and a report from a specialist will provide support to this court to move forward in this case,” the judge said.
In an order passed on 28 April, Justice Venkatesh said he would undergo “psycho-education” to understand same-sex relationships better and sought an appointment with a psychologist after admitting that he is “not fully woke on this aspect”.
(Edited by Sunanda Ranjan)
Also Read: Gay marriage not a fundamental right, wedding a bond between man, woman — Centre to Delhi HC