<p>Observing that those from the LGBTQIA+ community are entitled to their privacy and right to lead a dignified existence like cis persons, the Madras High Court on Monday came up with comprehensive eight-point guidelines on dealing with same-sex couples and sensitising the society.</p>.<p>The court also ordered the prohibition of any attempts to medically “cure” or change the sexual orientation of LGBTIQA+ people to heterosexual or the gender identity of transgender people to cisgender, and advocated a change in curricula of schools and universities to educate students on understanding the LGBTQIA+ Community.</p>.<p>In a detailed order, Justice N Anand Venkatesh, who underwent a counselling session to understand same-sex relationships and consulted members from the LGBTQIA+ community on the subject, said the issue on hand is “very important” and requires awakening in the society.</p>.<p>He was hearing a petition filed by a lesbian couple seeking protection from their families against their relationship. The judge had in April declared in the court that he wanted to learn more about same-sex relationships before delivering the verdict and underwent counselling.</p>.<p><strong>Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/international/olympics-gave-hope-to-japan-s-lgbtq-activists-but-old-prejudices-die-hard-994222.html">Olympics gave hope to Japan’s LGBTQ activists, but old prejudices die hard</a></strong></p>.<p>Outlining the guidelines, Justice Venkatesh said the police, on receipt of any complaint regarding missing cases, which upon investigation is found to involve consenting adults belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community should close the complaint without subjecting them to any harassment after recording their statements.</p>.<p>Asking the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment (MSJE) to enlist the support of groups that have sufficient expertise in handling the issues faced by the LGBTQIA+ community and help those who face an issue for the reason of their belongingness to the community.</p>.<p>“LGBTQIA+ persons, like cis persons, are entitled to their privacy and have a right to lead a dignified existence, which includes their choice of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender presentation, gender expression and choice of partner thereof,” the judge said in his order, listing the case on August 31, 2021, for further orders.</p>.<p>This right and the manner of its exercise are constitutionally protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 is a clear pointer that Parliament has recognised varying forms of sexual identity, he observed. </p>.<p>In his order, the judge also suggested the inclusion of ‘transgender’ in addition to M and F gender columns in application forms for admission in educational institutions, and competitive entrance exams.</p>.<p>The court also directed the government to make adequate infrastructural arrangements to house such persons who need protection as it stressed the need for eliminating prejudices against the LGBTQIA+ community, and channelising them back into the mainstream.</p>.<p>He also said outreach programs to be conducted in association with NGOs and members of the LGBTQIA+ Community and parents should be sensitised on issues of the LGBTQIA+ community while asking for the availability of gender-neutral restrooms for the gender-nonconforming student.</p>.<p>“If I have to figuratively describe the change in my perspective from right at the start of the conversation and to the time it ended, the petitioners described their love and companionship in exact terms of how two cis-heterosexuals, in my understanding, would have addressed their relationship,” Justice Venkatesh said.</p>.<p>“Whatever they said sounded very natural and made me question myself as to where the conflict actually arises. This change happened within a mere duration of 15 minutes,” he added.</p>.<p>The judge also said over decades, the voice of the LGBTQIA+ community is now getting louder and stronger and society can no more turn a deaf ear and the time has come to make that change.</p>.<p>“It is, therefore, clear that the actual problem is not the fact that the law does not recognise a relationship but that the sanction that is accorded by the society is not available. It is only for this reason, I strongly feel that the change must take place at a societal level and when it is complemented by law there will be a remarkable change in the outlook of the society by recognising same-sex relationships,” he observed.</p>
<p>Observing that those from the LGBTQIA+ community are entitled to their privacy and right to lead a dignified existence like cis persons, the Madras High Court on Monday came up with comprehensive eight-point guidelines on dealing with same-sex couples and sensitising the society.</p>.<p>The court also ordered the prohibition of any attempts to medically “cure” or change the sexual orientation of LGBTIQA+ people to heterosexual or the gender identity of transgender people to cisgender, and advocated a change in curricula of schools and universities to educate students on understanding the LGBTQIA+ Community.</p>.<p>In a detailed order, Justice N Anand Venkatesh, who underwent a counselling session to understand same-sex relationships and consulted members from the LGBTQIA+ community on the subject, said the issue on hand is “very important” and requires awakening in the society.</p>.<p>He was hearing a petition filed by a lesbian couple seeking protection from their families against their relationship. The judge had in April declared in the court that he wanted to learn more about same-sex relationships before delivering the verdict and underwent counselling.</p>.<p><strong>Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/international/olympics-gave-hope-to-japan-s-lgbtq-activists-but-old-prejudices-die-hard-994222.html">Olympics gave hope to Japan’s LGBTQ activists, but old prejudices die hard</a></strong></p>.<p>Outlining the guidelines, Justice Venkatesh said the police, on receipt of any complaint regarding missing cases, which upon investigation is found to involve consenting adults belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community should close the complaint without subjecting them to any harassment after recording their statements.</p>.<p>Asking the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment (MSJE) to enlist the support of groups that have sufficient expertise in handling the issues faced by the LGBTQIA+ community and help those who face an issue for the reason of their belongingness to the community.</p>.<p>“LGBTQIA+ persons, like cis persons, are entitled to their privacy and have a right to lead a dignified existence, which includes their choice of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender presentation, gender expression and choice of partner thereof,” the judge said in his order, listing the case on August 31, 2021, for further orders.</p>.<p>This right and the manner of its exercise are constitutionally protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 is a clear pointer that Parliament has recognised varying forms of sexual identity, he observed. </p>.<p>In his order, the judge also suggested the inclusion of ‘transgender’ in addition to M and F gender columns in application forms for admission in educational institutions, and competitive entrance exams.</p>.<p>The court also directed the government to make adequate infrastructural arrangements to house such persons who need protection as it stressed the need for eliminating prejudices against the LGBTQIA+ community, and channelising them back into the mainstream.</p>.<p>He also said outreach programs to be conducted in association with NGOs and members of the LGBTQIA+ Community and parents should be sensitised on issues of the LGBTQIA+ community while asking for the availability of gender-neutral restrooms for the gender-nonconforming student.</p>.<p>“If I have to figuratively describe the change in my perspective from right at the start of the conversation and to the time it ended, the petitioners described their love and companionship in exact terms of how two cis-heterosexuals, in my understanding, would have addressed their relationship,” Justice Venkatesh said.</p>.<p>“Whatever they said sounded very natural and made me question myself as to where the conflict actually arises. This change happened within a mere duration of 15 minutes,” he added.</p>.<p>The judge also said over decades, the voice of the LGBTQIA+ community is now getting louder and stronger and society can no more turn a deaf ear and the time has come to make that change.</p>.<p>“It is, therefore, clear that the actual problem is not the fact that the law does not recognise a relationship but that the sanction that is accorded by the society is not available. It is only for this reason, I strongly feel that the change must take place at a societal level and when it is complemented by law there will be a remarkable change in the outlook of the society by recognising same-sex relationships,” he observed.</p>