Madras High Court Asks Director Of Medical Education To Conduct Awareness Programmes To Update LGBTQ+ Issues, Include Speakers From Community

The Madras High Court has directed the Director of Medical Education, Government of Tamil Nadu to conduct awareness programs for updating the LGBTQIA+ issues based competency available in the medical education curriculum in all Government and Private Medical Colleges. The court also emphasised the need to include speakers from the LGBTQIA+ community to address theor issued and to understand their difficulties better. “It is important to include LGBTQIA+ persons as speakers to address their issues in order to help the medical and health care professionals to understand their difficulties better. Sharing the lived experience is the most powerful way in which such awareness can be created,” the court said. Justice Anand Venkatesh made the direction after being informed that in September 2024, in an education session organized at the Madurai Medical College to discuss LGBTQIA+ issues, 3 speakers belonging to the community were disrespected when a cardiologist stood up and said they were boycotting the program and asked the students to leave the hall. The court was informed that it was done with the intention to insult the speakers. The court noted that the incident showed the mindset of the persons forming part of medical education. The court thus directed the inclusion of speakers from the LGBTQIA+ community and asked the direction to be followed in letter and spirit. During the course of the hearing, the court also prompted deliberations on the need for either bringing in a comprehensive policy for the LGBTQIA+ community or for bringing in two different policies – one for persons belonging to the transgender and intersex community and another for persons belonging to LGBQA community. On the one side, it was argued that bringing in separate policies would result in discord and differences among the communities and the unity would be disrupted. It was also submitted that there is very little representation for transmen and little representation for transmen and intersex persons and creating two different policies marginalizes them more. On the other side, while arguing for a different policy, it was argued that persons belonging to the transgender community had been historically marginalized for a very long time and were one of the most vulnerable sections of society. Thus, it was submitted that the benefits that were going to be extended to the persons belonging to the transgender and intersex communities should not be made to wait endlessly till the completion of policy for persons belonging to other communities. It was argued that two different policies will not bring in any split of division as apprehended but will only bring in more clarity while continuing the fight for recognition of the whole community. The State submitted that when the input of the transgender community was sought for after the unified policy was prepared, the State found that the transgender community feared that if a common policy is brought into force, the social welfare benefits that the community would be receiving will be diverted to other communities. Since the policy will be effective in as much as the truth it inspires on its beneficiaries, the State was of the view that a separate policy could effectively address the unique challenges. The court noted that the state had considered the recommendation of the committee and instead of carving out a separate portion for the transgender and intersex persons within the unified policy, the state had formulated a separate policy. The state informed that it would consider all the expressed while finalising the policy and sought 3 months time to finalise the policy. The court appreciated the State for open dialogue on the draft policy and said that such deliberation of policy was undertaken in the present case since it was prepared by persons who never had a lived experience of the travails faced by persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community. thus, the court emphasized that it was important to understand and appreciate the sensitivity that it involved before finalizing the policy. “It is unusual for the Government to allow its policy to be discussed before it is given the force of law and the fact that the Government was also open for such a discussion, shows that the State wants to take into account the views expressed by all the stake holders before they come out with the historic policy for LGBTQIA+ community and give it a force of law. Such law will be one of a kind in the entire country and it will pave way for a better future for those persons who were exploited and marginalised by this society for a long period of time,” the court said. Case Title: S Sushma and Another v. Director General of Police and Others Case No: Writ Petition No.7284 of 2021Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Madras High Court Asks Director Of Medical Education To Conduct Awareness Programmes To Update LGBTQ+ Issues, Include Speakers From Community

Upasana Sajeev

Tags