Allahabad HC Denies Protection To Homosexual-Transgender Couple; Says State Has No Role To Play In Such Private Affairs [Read Order]
The Allahabad High Court recently refused protection to a couple—a homosexual and a transgender— who had approached the court alleging that they were being harassed by their relatives.
Aged 20 years and 22 years, the two petitioners submitted before the court that they were in love and had decided to stay together. However, their family members were not ready to accept their relationship and were harassing them. They had therefore sought a direction to the authorities to grant them protection from such harassment.
The court, however, opined that the matter was a private one and did not warrant court interference. It observed, “There may not be any doubt that the petitioners, if they are major, are at liberty to live their life in the manner they like and they may not be committing any offence but the State Authorities apparently have no role to play in such private affairs of the individuals.
The problem which has been raised in this petition is of a social nature between the individuals for which there is no cure in law. It is a in-house problem which has to be resolved by the members of the family or its solution has to be found by the society.”
The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ravindra Nath Kakkar also noted that the petitioners had not specifically pleaded or placed any material as to the manner in which their private life was being interfered with by anybody.
It further observed that the petitioners, if aggrieved by any such interference, should seek remedy in common law or in filing a first information report or by approaching the Magistrate.
“The writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction and in the facts and circumstances of the case as nothing serious has been alleged, this court find it difficult to exercise its discretion in such a matter where patently there is no miscarriage of justice and there is no pleadings supported by any material establishing any threat perception to the petitioners or infringement of their right to life and liberty,” it explained.
The court, therefore, dismissed the petition, with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to other remedies in law.