Centre Forms Committee To Examine Issues Of Queer Community As Per SC Judgment In Same-Sex Marriage Case
The Central Government has constituted a six-member committee to examine various issues relating to the queer community as directed by the Supreme Court in its judgement in “Supriyo v Union of India”.The Committee is headed by the Cabinet Secretary and comprises the Secretaries of the Department of Home, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Department of Health and Family...
The Central Government has constituted a six-member committee to examine various issues relating to the queer community as directed by the Supreme Court in its judgement in “Supriyo v Union of India”.
The Committee is headed by the Cabinet Secretary and comprises the Secretaries of the Department of Home, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Legislative Department and the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment.
As per the Centre's notification, the Committee may examine and submit recommendations on the following issues :
(i) measures to be taken by the Central Government and the State Governments to ensure that there is no discrimination in access to goods and services to the queer community;
(ii) measures to be taken such that queer community do not face any threat of violence, harassment or coercion;
(iii) measures to be taken to ensure that queer person are not subjected to involuntary medical treatments, surgeries, etc., including modules to cover mental health of queer persons;
(iv) measures to be taken to ensure that there is no discrimination in access to social welfare entitlements to queer persons;
(v) any other issues as deemed necessary.
In Supriyo v Union of India, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court had refused to grant legal recognition for same-sex marriages observing that it was a matter for the Parliament to decide. The Court also refused to strike down the Special Marriage Act 1954 for not allowing registration of same-sex marriages. At the same time, the Court held that LGBTQIA+ couples should be protected from harassment.
The Court recorded the assurance of the Solicitor General that the Union Government will constitute a Committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for the purpose of defining and elucidating the scope of the entitlements of queer couples who are in unions.
The judgment authored by CJI DY Chandrachud stated that the Committee shall include experts with domain knowledge and experience in dealing with the social, psychological, and emotional needs of persons belonging to the queer community as well as members of the queer community. The Committee shall before finalizing its decisions conduct wide stakeholder consultation amongst persons belonging to the queer community, including persons belonging to marginalized groups and with the governments of the States and Union Territories.
CJI Chandrachud observed in his judgment that the Committee shall in terms of the exposition in this judgment consider the following:
i. Enabling partners in a queer relationship (i) to be treated as a part of the same family for the purposes of a ration card; and
(ii) to have the facility of a joint bank account with the option to name the partner as a nominee, in case of death; ii. In terms of the decision in Common Cause v. Union of India, as modified by Common Cause v. Union of India , medical practitioners have a duty to consult family or next of kin or next friend, in the event patients who are terminally ill have not executed an Advance Directive. Parties in a union may be considered 'family' for this purpose;
iii. Jail visitation rights and the right to access the body of the deceased partner and arrange the last rites; and
iv. Legal consequences such as succession rights, maintenance, financial benefits such as under the Income Tax Act 1961, rights flowing from employment such as gratuity and family pension and insurance.
The report of the Committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary shall be implemented at the administrative level by the Union Government and the governments of the States and Union Territories, the judgment stated.