Discover key legal insights and societal inclusion steps in DEI India today.
The Supreme Court in Deeksha N Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka and Ors., exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, has modified its earlier directive concerning the Advocates' Association Bengaluru (AAB) elections. Initially, the Court had reserved the Treasurer's post exclusively for women and suggested that at least 30% of the Governing Council positions be allocated to female candidates. In response to concerns from male candidates who had already filed nominations for the Treasurer position, the Court has now ordered the creation of an additional Vice-President post and increased the number of Governing Council seats to accommodate these candidates. Furthermore, the Court clarified that women candidates must have a minimum of eight years of experience to be eligible for these reserved positions.
Read the judgment here.
A PIL, Aarushi Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, has been filed in the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the recently implemented Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Uttarakhand 2024. The Petitioner contends that certain provisions of the UCC infringe upon fundamental rights, particularly affecting the Muslim and LGBTQ+ communities. Key issues raised include the imposition of Hindu Marriage Act restrictions on Muslim and Parsi marriages, exclusion of LGBTQ+ couples from live-in relationship recognition, and mandatory registration of live-in relationships with associated penalties. The High Court has issued notices to the Centre and the state government, seeking their responses within six weeks. The case raises significant constitutional and social implications regarding the balance between uniformity and diversity in personal laws.
The Madras High Court criticised the National Medical Commission (NMC) for labelling gender identity as a "disorder" in its medical curriculum in S Suhma v. Director General of Police And Others. The Court emphasised that LGBTQIA+ identities are natural variations and not psychological disorders. Justice Venkatesh expressed concern over the NMC's assertion that topics like homosexuality are adequately covered in schools, questioning the scientific basis of such claims. The Court also noted the NMC's delay in amending regulations to classify conversion therapy as professional misconduct. The Court emphasised the need for inclusive and affirming healthcare practices for transgender and non-binary individuals. It also called for a review of existing materials to eliminate stigmatising content. The ruling aligns with the broader push for gender-sensitive legal and educational reforms in India.
Read the judgment here.
A 28-year-old transgender man has petitioned the Kerala High Court in Hari Devageeth v. Union of India & Ors. after a private hospital in Thiruvananthapuram denied his request to freeze his eggs due to his male gender identity. Assigned female at birth, the Petitioner has undergone breast removal surgery and seeks to preserve his eggs before completing further gender-affirming procedures to maintain future reproductive options. He contends that the hospital's refusal infringes upon his reproductive rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and violates the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which prohibits discrimination in medical services based on gender identity. The High Court has issued notices to the hospital, State and Central Governments, and the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board.
The News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) in the Common Order No. (189) 2025 has advised Sudhir Chaudhary to report on LGBTQ+ issues with greater maturity and dignity. This directive follows complaints about his coverage of same-sex marriage debates, which were criticised for lacking sensitivity and accuracy. The NBDSA emphasised the importance of responsible journalism in representing marginalised communities. Chaudhary's reporting was scrutinised for potential bias and misrepresentation of LGBTQ+ perspectives. The Authority's guidance aims to promote respectful and informed discussions on LGBTQ+ rights in the media, which are even recognised by the Courts.
Comments