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.

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

People’s Union for Civil Liberties; Coalition for Sex Workers, Sexual and Sexuality Minorities’ Rights; Payana; ASQ; Swabhava Trust; LesBit; Jeeva; Karnataka Transgender Samiti; Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum; Sarathya; Swatantra; Ondede; Sangama; QAMI and QCI condemn the irresponsible, sensational and salacious reportage by media houses on the issue of LGBTQIA+ rights.

On Wednesday, July 5, Bangalore Mirror published on its front page a news item titled “All hell breaks loose as two women wed in Koramangala”. The news item proceeded to give a one-sided account of the women’s relationship. It published salacious details about how their relationship started and went on to falsely claim that the women had gotten married. Further, the news item mentioned two quotes from lawyers saying that they were in an “unnatural union” and would be “punished”, and only one from a lawyer, who was misidentified, saying that same-sex relationships per se are not criminalized under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

At the same time, Public TV, a Kannada news channel, also obtained the contact details of one of the women, and called her to appear on their show. When she refused, stating that she wished to keep her life private, the reporter from Public TV told her to “wait and see”. Subsequently, Public TV uploaded perfunctorily blurred pictures of the women on their Facebook and Twitter feed, with captions insinuating that they were in an incestuous relationship. Public TV continues to harass one of the two women by constantly calling her and demanding that she appear on this show.

In case anyone is doubtful about the repercussions of such irresponsible reportage – one of the women was fired from her employment with immediate effect, within a few hours of the Public TV report.

As civil society organisations that work on the rights of LGBTIA+ individuals, we are horrified at the absolute lack of concern that media organisations demonstrate for the lives of people that they are reporting. We know that this is an incident that involves tremendous amounts of domestic violence and abuse. We are also aware that these women are living in constant fear for their lives. They have endured domestic violence, police harassment, and threats to their lives, and had achieved a semblance of peace for themselves. However, the actions of media houses have shattered this hard-earned respite, and now they are again forced to be on the run.

This is not the first time that media houses in Karnataka have chosen to report in this manner. TV9s reporting on Operation Anandi had devastating impact on the lives of the transgender women involved, some of whom continue to languish in jail. Media houses refuse to acknowledge actual human lives in their reportage, and absolve all responsibility for consequences. Every time a media house publishes a report like this; LGBTQIA+ persons are pushed further into the closet, and are made more vulnerable to violence.

Moreover, we understand that the police themselves have leaked much information to the media. It is disconcerting that in spite of closing all formal proceedings, the police continue to interfere in the lives of these women, and are harassing them using the media.

As a group of civil society organisations concerned for media reportage and its impact on the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons, we are calling for a press conference tomorrow, July 6, 2017, at 1 pm, Bangalore Press Club.

Organisations: People’s Union for Civil Liberties; Coalition for Sex Workers, Sexual and Sexuality Minorities’ Rights; Payana; ASQ; Swabhava Trust; LesBit; Jeeva; Karnataka Transgender Samiti; Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum; Sarathya; Swatantra; Ondede; Sangama; QAMI and QCI

Timeline of media coverage (credits Rōmal Lāisram)

Bangalore Mirror published this on July 5: http://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/cover-story/all-hell-breaks-loose-as-two-women-wed-in-koramangala/articleshow/59448986.cms

Public TV goes live with the story a few hours later, claiming an incestuous relationship and highly sensationalises the story: http://publictv.in/father-files-complaint-against-homosexual-techie-sisters-in-bengaluru/

News9/Deccan Herald and TheNewsMinute call up activists for directions on how to respond to the story:

News9 responds positively like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5LVfgU6pCQ

TheNewsMinute responds satirically: http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/completely-out-their-depth-bengaluru-cops-counsel-lesbian-couple-instead-helping-them-64710

Deccan Herald decides to avoid the story altogether.

Public TV airs a special (link not yet up, but this smaller package will show you enough how terrible the reportage is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnGBVsHu3p0 | It was also their ‘breaking news’ in the) 10:30pm bulletin)

This study aims to understand the facets of discrimination experienced by people in same-sex and other queer/trans relationships  because of their relationship status; and to examine the relationship shared by the parties to such relations between themselves and with other persons/institutions.

The expected results of this study are (i) a critique of Indian laws relating to marriage, based on the real-life stories narrated by individuals in queer/trans relationships, and (ii) a case for recognizing rights of queer/trans people in relationships by using the Constitution as a tool of transformative justice to invoke protections of substantive equality and human dignity.

The scope of the study includes both dyadic (couple) and non-dyadic (poly) relationships that are viewed by the law as falling outside the presumed-cis, heterosexual norm. These could include, for example, relationships of two or more (cis/trans) women, (cis/trans) men, non-binary people, or cis-trans relationships where one or more of the individuals is gay/lesbian, bisexual, pansexual or queer. Individuals who are/were citizens of India, including those currently residing here, and those who grew up in India and are currently living abroad, are considered.

Methods used will include In-depth Interviews, Focus Group Discussions and Observation. The nature of questions to be posed to the participants would be generally open-ended and analytical questions. Responses may be recorded either by audio/video or in writing. Ethical issues of anonymity (when sought), informed consent and confidentiality will be strictly complied with.

Illustrative issues considered in the interview/FGD include openness about the relationship with family, social circles, neighborhood and/or workplace, discrimination faced  in housing, banking, and other areas, financial dependence and violence (physical, sexual, emotional) encountered.

To learn more or participate, email sourav.law@gmail.com or call +91 74064 47531.