ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 10th August. Click Here for more information.
Source-The post is based on the article”Four years after landmark LGBT verdict: The march to full citizenship” published in the Indian Express on 6th September 2022.
Syllabus: GS2-Mechanisms and laws for protection and betterment of vulnerable sections.GS1-Social empowerment
News: Exactly, 4 years ago, Supreme Court in the case Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India, struck down provisions of Section 377 and decriminalised same sex relationship. The articles highlights the major developments that took place after this judgment to recognise many non-traditional forms of relationships and families.
What are the developments that have taken place after Navtej Singh Johar case?
Madhu Bala v State of Uttarakhand (2020) held that the right of a same sex couple to live together is a constitutional and human right.
In Vanitaben Damjibhai Solanki v State of Gujarat (2020), the Gujarat High Court ordered police protection for two women police constables in a relationship. The couple was facing threats by their families, who vehemently opposed their relationship.
In Pramod Kumar Sharma v State of UP (2021), the Allahabad High Court reinstated the home guard to service whose appointment was cancelled due to a video, which displayed his affection to his same-sex partner. The Allahabad High Court order relied on Navtej Singh Johar and held that the display of affection amongst members of the LGBTQI community cannot be bogged down by any apparent disapproval by the majority.
Finally, in S Sushma v Commissioner of Police (2021) court banned the questionable practice of ‘conversion therapy’. The therapy attempts to cure or change the sexual orientation of queer people.
The case has led to the National Medical Commission issuing directions that doctors practising conversion therapy to “cure” queer citizens will amount to professional misconduct under the Indian Medical Councils Rules.
In Deepika Singh v the Central Administrative Tribunal (2022), expanded the definition of family. The case involved a government employee who married her partner, a widower with two children. She was denied maternity leave for their third child (her first biological child) since she took leave to care for her “step”-children. According to the rules, she was entitled to 730 days of leave to take care of “upto two children”.
