“Chosen Family Is A Valid Family”: Madras High Court Backs LGBTQ+ Couple’s Rights (image/freepik)
Tamil Nadu: The Madras High Court recently observed that while same-sex marriages are yet to be legalised in India, the concept of “family” isn’t just limited to marriage but should be understood expansively.
Comprising a bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan, the court acknowledged that the Supreme Court had refused to hold that LGBTQIA+ couples have a fundamental right to marry, referring to the case of Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India (2023).
Also Read | Husband Found Murdered, Wife Still Missing: Indore Couple’s Dire Honeymoon To Meghalaya
However, the bench observed that marriage is not the only way to form a family. “The concept of ‘chosen family’ is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence,” said the court.
The bench also pointed out that a single judge of the High Court, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, had also called for taking steps to recognise civil unions between LGBTQIA+ partners.
The court made the remarks while ordering the release of a 25-year-old woman from the illegal custody of her natal family. Her father and other family members had allegedly confined her over her consensual relationship with her same-sex partner.
Her mother alleged that the petitioner had led her daughter astray by getting her addicted to drugs. The court, however, found the allegations baseless after observing the woman’s composure and clarity.
The woman told the court that she was a lesbian and in a consensual relationship. She claimed that her family had forcibly taken her home, subjecting her to rituals intended to “cure” her and even beaten by her family members.
“We endeavoured in vain to impress upon the mother that her daughter, being an adult, is entitled to choose a life of her own,” the court noted, while expressing empathy for the parent’s social conditioning.
Also Read | Here’s Why You Don’t Get A Tatkal Ticket… And The Minister’s Solution
The court also said, “To a homosexual individual, his/her/their sexual orientation must be perfectly natural and normal. There is nothing strange or odd about such inclinations. Why then should they be called as queer?”
The judges emphasised that sexual orientation and identity fall squarely within the protective ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing personal liberty and dignity.
