S. Sushma V. Director General Of Police (29th March, 2021) The Present Case Deals With The Issue Of Same-Sex Couples And Non-Acceptance Of The Same By Their Families

CRUX: S. Sushma v. Director General of Police (29th March, 2021) - The present case deals with the issue of same-sex couples and non-acceptance of the same by their families.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29th March, 2021.

JUDGE: N. Anand Venkatesh.

PARTIES

• S. Sushma (Appellant)
• Director General of Police (Respondent)

SUMMARY: The following case deals with the issue of same-sex couples and non-acceptance of the same by their families.

OVERVIEW

1. The appellants, aged 22 and 20, have known each other and, eventually, entered into a relationship with each other.
2. The parents of the appellants opposed this union, due to which the appellants had to leave Madurai for Chennai to look for jobs to financially sustain themselves. They were being cared for by a non-governmental organization in the city.
3. The court, while interacting with the parents of the appellants, it found out that the parents were shocked and stated that they were not ready to immediately accept the relationship between the appellants.
4. The parents of the appellants were concerned about the security of the appellants and were worried that the appellants were prone to exploitation.
5. The court thought fit to recommend the appellants and their parents to a counsellor who specialized in working with LGBTQI+ individuals.

ISSUES

The following issue was analyzed by the court:

• Whether the appellants and their parents should be referred to a counsellor specializing in LGBTQI+ affairs.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Art. 226 of the Constitution: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

1. The counsels of both the appellants and the respondents requested the court to continue hearing the case since the court had interacted with both the appellants and the respondent.
2. The counsels were of the opinion that it would be convenient for the appellants and the respondent to put forth their grievances in future hearings and by monitoring the case, the court, in the opinion of the counsels, would find it easier to resolve the issue at the earliest.
3. The counsel for the government submitted before the court that the police would not interfere in this issue any longer, and that the complaints were to be immediately closed.
4. The court, on hearing the arguments made by the appellants and the respondent, found it prudent to refer the parties to a counsellor and send a report to the court on or before the 26th of April, 2021.
5. The court informed the parents that status quo was to be maintained and that the appellants were to continue to be under the protection of the NGO.
6. The court requested for the mediation court to allot two cabins to enable the parents to have a one-to one interaction with their daughters where the parents spent nearly an hour with their respective daughters in the mediation centre.
7. The court, after spending sufficient time with the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the parties would work towards a peaceful resolution, and what was required for the present is an understanding of the issue in hand.
8. The only request the parents had before the court was that they should have regular interaction with the appellants. The appellants accepted the request of their parents and agreed to meet them on a regular basis.
9. The court, while pronouncing its judgment, was of the opinion that it was trying to break its own preconceived notions about this issue and was in the process of evolving by sincerely attempting to understand the feelings of the appellants and their parents thereafter in order to proceed to write a detailed order on this issue.

CONCLUSION

The issue that the present case deals with is the issue of same-sex couples and non-acceptance of the same by their families. The court, in the present case, sought to allow the same-sex couple to continue living with each other and allow the parties in the suit to settle the dispute on their own.

The court, in its ruling, stated that it was trying to break from its own preconceived notions about this issue and was in the process of evolving and was trying to attempt to understand the feelings of the appellants and their parents before trying to write a detailed order on the issue. The court stated that it was trying to understand this issue by doing some research and collecting materials on the same. The court held that it was trying to build the case brick by brick and ultimately, construct something purposeful on this issue.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement