"Shows Your Mindset": Madras HC Orally Criticises National Medical Commission For Terming Gender Identity As "Disorder"

The Madras High Court, on Monday (February 3)', orally criticized the National Medical Commission (NMC) for its proposed medical curriculum prepared by the body pertaining to gender and sexuality. Justice Anand Venkatesh, who has been issuing a slew of directions concerning the rights of persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ orally observed that the NMC's curriculum, which continued using the word “Gender Identity Disorder” would only negate the efforts taken by the court to bring about a change. The court stressed that the persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community could not be said to have a disorder and were created by nature in such a way. “Efforts are actually being taken to water it down. The fact that you've used the word gender identity disorder shows the mindset. If you call it a disorder, then everything is a disorder. The nature has created them in such a way,” the court remarked. The court was particularly displeased to note that the NMC, in its curriculum had stated that since homosexuality and connected matters were taught in the schools, it need not be a part of the medical curriculum. The court added that if the NMC itself was hesitant to educate about issues, how could it expect the schools, which were much lower in scientific temperament than NMC, to take up the issue? “Which school is teaching this? In fact in schools, all this (words like homosexuality) is considered to be bad words. I'm stunned. I'm flabbergasted. When institutions at the level of NMC are hesitating, you're expecting schools to do it? You're all people dealing with science, taking facts as it if. And you're going on and calling it a disorder. It'll negate the whole exercise because fundamentally we're not changing. We'll just be beating around the bush,” the court added. The oral remarks were made by the court when NMC brought to the court's notice, the changes it had included in the curriculum. The petitioner, however, raised serious objection on the stand taken by NMC and said that NMC had virtually gone back to its original position. The counsel pointed out that while a committee appointed by the NMC had given it's suggestion in 2022 which had sought to bring in positive changes, the current changes sought to be brought in by the NMC did not include these suggestions. With respect to the inclusion of conversion therapy as a professional misconduct, the NMC informed the court that the 2023 Regulation in which conversion therapy was sought to be included had been kept in abeyance and thus, at present, the 2004 regulation was in force. To this, the court suggested that till the new regulations came into force, steps could be made to make changes to the current regulation to bring in conversion therapy as a professional misconduct. Draft Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, Sensitisation of Teachers and the Transgender Persons Policy During the course of the hearing, the state also informed the State that the finalisation of the policy was at a crucial stage and that inputs had been sought from concerned departments after which the policy will be placed before the council of ministers for approval and upon approval would be notified. The State also informed the court that rules covered the entire LGBTQIA+ community and was an exhaustive one. The state thus informed the court that considering the inherent discrimination faced by the persons coming from the transgender and intersex community, a decision was taken to have separate policies – one for persons falling under the transgender or intersex category and another for members who belonged to other communities within the LGBTQIA+. The court, however, opined that such separate policies may cause further confusion as it may lead one to believe that transgender and intersex persons were not part of the LGBTQIA+ community. The court thus suggested that it would be more appropriate to bring in a consolidated policy which could contain the reservation to be made available for persons from the transgender community. When the State submitted that there might be some difficulties in bringing a consolidated policy, the court asked the government to place both the policies before it along with a note on the possible difficulties. The court added that since stakeholders were involved in the litigation, an elaborate discussion could be made before the court which would help bring in an effective policy. The court made it clear that its aim was to avoid any litigation in connection with the policy in the future, making it a dead letter. Thus, the court asked the state to present the two policies along with a note for a discussion and adjourned the case to February 17, 2025. Case Title: S Suhma v Director General of Police And Others Case No: WP 7284 of 2021

"Shows Your Mindset": Madras HC Orally Criticises National Medical Commission For Terming Gender Identity As "Disorder"

Upasana Sajeev

Tags