Deed of Familial Association impleaded in Sushma case, Madras High Court
On Friday, November 17, 2023, Madras High Court heard a petition by a gay man, Prasanna, impleaded in the Sushma v. Commissioner of Police and ors. case. Advocate S Ajeetha, representing Prasanna, argued that there is a need for some formal mechanism of recognising couples from the LGBTIQIA+ community, as a means of protecting them from harassment, discrimination and other violations of their Right To Life.
The context of the petitioner is as follows: Prasanna, a 34 y.o. cis gay man in Chennai, faced a health emergency requiring hospitalisation during the second wave of COVID, in 2021. However, his partner of over 15 years was not recognised as a family member. As a result, Prasanna was forced to travel to the neighbouring district (where his natal family resided) to seek emergency care there. Based on this and other instances of exclusion and discrimination, Prasanna prayed for recognition of his partner through contract law, specifically the Deed of Familial Association, proposed the same year by Prof Tiju Thomas in the Law School Policy Review. The petition was impleaded in the Sushma hearings of Madras High Court and heard by Justice Anand Venkatesh on Nov 17, 2023.
Read Prasanna’s petition here and Justice Anand Venkatesh’s Interim Order here. Read the article by Prof. Tiju Thomas’ article on Deed of Familial Association here |
The Madras High Court has asked for the Tamil Nadu government to consider this proposal, and for it to be included in the state LGBTQIA+ policy currently being drafted, The Interim Order draws attention to the Supriyo judgement and asks that the DFA be in consonance with the ratio of the judgement, focusing on ways to ensure (only) Article 21 – which includes the right to relationships – is protected through the mechanism of a DFA.
Media coverage follows
