Laws

INDIA

Limited information only available for these topics

Access to Children
Adoption of Children
Age of Consent
Annuities, Pensions
Anti-Vilification
Artifical Insemination
Assisted Reproduction
Asylum / Refugees
Civil Unions
Custody of Children
Discrimination
Fostering Children
Gender Identity
Harassment
Hate Crimes
Health, Medical
HIV/Aids
Homosexuality
Immigration
Inheritance
In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF)
Marriage
Military
Parenting
Partners
Property
Sodomy
Surrogacy
Transgender, Transsexual
Violence
Wrongful Death

Please read the Disclaimer

Annuities, Pensions, Superannuation Legislation/Cases/References
1.

State

On 01 August 2012, Tamil Nadu Chief minister J Jayalalithaa said that 11.7 million Rupees ($211,000, €170,000) had been budgeted for the 'Pension Scheme for Destitute Transgenders' [R1.1].

R1.1 GayStarNews: Pensions for the transgender community in Tamil Nadu 13 AUG 12
Assisted Reproduction Technology
Artificial Insemination, In Vitro Fertilisation
Surrogacy
Legislation/Cases/Documents/References
1.

National

On 19 March 2013, the home ministry reportedly had decided to let babies – commissioned by gay and single foreigners after a July 2012 ban – to leave the country when they are born this year. Only heterosexual married couples are eligible for a medical visa to travel to India to commission surrogacy under the new visa rule [R1.6].

On 09 July 2012, the Ministry of Home Affairs (File No.25022/74/2011-F-1) decreed that a medical visa may only be granted to couples who have been married for more than two years seeking to enter into commercial surrogacy arrangements, and only if it is legal in their home country. A medical visa is required [D1.5], [R1.4].

In February 2011, the Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) Regulation Bill 2010, effectively banning gay couples from using surrogate mothers was sent to the law ministry for approval. There is apparently nothing in the bill to stop a single gay man from having a surrogate baby, as single men and women will be eligible [R1.3].

In February 2011, the law commission, alarmed that a Melbourne (Australia) court has recognised an Australian gay couple as the parents of twins born from a surrogate Indian woman, is preparing a draft legislation to safeguard both surrogate mothers and the children they bear, requiring –

  • consent of surrogate "mother" to bear the child and the consent of her "husband" and other family members for the same,
  • provision of financial support for the surrogate child in the event of death of the commissioning couple or individual before delivery of the child, or divorce between the intended parents and subsequent willingness of none to take delivery of the child.
  • recognition of a surrogate child to be the legitimate child of the commissioning parent(s) without there being any need for adoption or even the declaration of a guardian.
  • the birth certificate of the surrogate child to contain the name(s) of the commissioning parent(s) only.
  • the right of privacy of the donor as well as the surrogate mother be protected. [R1.2].

Previously:

In April 2010, a draft bill to regulate in vitro fertilization (IVF) reportedly may exclude gay couples from hiring surrogates to bear them children because same-sex relationships are not recognized in India. Strict provisions in the bill, such as the requirement that foreign countries guarantee to accept the surrogate child as a citizen, could affect all couples, not just same-sex couples, seeking a surrogacy arrangement in India [R1.1].

R1.6 HindustanTimes: Gay foreigners can take home India-born babies 19 MAR 13
D1.5 Ministry of Home Affairs: Foreign nationals intending to visit India for commissioning surrogacy File No. 25022/74/2011-F-1 PDF 563.35kb, 09 JUL 12
R1.4 GNN / MCV: India raises marriage barrier to gay surrogacy 15 JAN 13
R1.3 PinkNews: India [to] ban[s] gay couples from surrogacy 25 FEB 11
R1.2 Daily News & Analysis: Govt wary of gay couples and surrogacy 30 JAN11
R1.1 The Advocate: Indian IVF Law May Stop Gay Surrogacy 27 APR 10
Civil Unions, Partners: Domestic, Registered Legislation/Cases/References
See also: [DISCRIMINATION] [MARRIAGE]
1.

States

Despite the Punjab and Haryana high court last month ordering the police to protect a lesbian couple, Swaran Kaur (20) and Harsharan Kaur (28) have been told to leave their home by the Balahar Vinju village government and disinherited by their families [R1.1].

See: 2. Courts & Tribunals below.

2.

Courts & Tribunals

On 26 April 2012, the the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed police authorities to provide adequate police protection to lesbian couple Swaran Kaur and Harsharan Kaur, both residents of Bathinda, fearing threat to their lives from their parents and family members for indulging in same sex marriage [R2.1].

R1.1 GayStarNews: Lesbian couple exiled from village in Punjab 23 MAY 12
R2.1 The Indian Express: Same sex marriage: HC orders protection for couple 26 APR 12
Discrimination Legislation/Cases/References
1.

States

Despite the Punjab and Haryana high court last month ordering the police to protect a lesbian couple, Swaran Kaur (20) and Harsharan Kaur (28) have been told to leave their home by the Balahar Vinju village government and disinherited by their families [R1.1].

R1.1 GayStarNews: Lesbian couple exiled from village in Punjab 23 MAY 12
Gender Identity, Intersex,
Transgender, Transexual

[?]
Legislation/Cases/References
See also: [MILITARY]
1.

National

On 20 July 2016, the Union Cabinet under the Chairmanship of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday approved The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2016. If the Bill becomes law it will benefit a large number of transgender persons, mitigate the stigma, discrimination and abuse against this marginalized section and bring them into the mainstream of society [R1.5].

On 24 April 2015, the upper house Rajya Sabha voted unanimously in favor of DMK MP Tiruchi Siva's private member's Rights of Transgender Persons Bill 2014 to provide for setting up of welfare boards at the Central and state levels, separate courts, two per cent reservation in government jobs and education, prohibits discrimination in employment, and access to financial aid. The Bill now goes to the lower house Lok Sabha [R1.4].

On 26 March 2014, the Election Commission, which has the task of organising the upcoming poll, reportedly has introduced an 'others' gender option for voter identity cards, enabling an estimated three million transgender men and women, eunuchs and transvestites that may range from natural intersex to male cross-dressers to vote for the first time, though only a handful of the community members have been enrolled in the category [R1.3].

On 21 August 2012, it was reported that first-time transgender voters henceforth need not bother looking for a sponsor or beg their parents to sign the new registration form. A recent order of the Election Commission of India (ECI) has relaxed conditions with the addition of 'chela' (assistant) or guru (teacher) in the voter registration form [R1.2].

On 12 November 2009, election authorities granted what they called an independent identity to intersex and transsexuals in the country's voter lists [R1.1].

2.

States

On 26 August 2016, the first meeting in Jaipur of a newly constituted board for transgender welfare, headed by minister for social justice and empowerment Arun Chaturvedu, decided that separate identity cards would be issued to members of transgender community in the state. For the purpose, a committee will be constituted in each district headed by the collector [R2.4].

On 12 November 2015, the State of Karala became the first Indian state to unveil a draft 'State Policy for Transgenders in Kerala 2015', envisaging an end to the societal stigma towards the sexual minority group and to ensure them non-discriminatory treatment [D2.3], [R2.2].

In March 2007, the Indian state of Tamil Nadu passed an order ensuring equal opportunities for transgenders in education [R2.1].

3.

Courts & Tribunals

On 30 June 2016, Justices A K Sikri and N V Ramana in the Supreme Court refused to modify a 2014 ruling on transgender rights and clarified that only the transgender community would qualify as the ''third gender'' and not gays, lesbians and bisexuals [R3.9].

On 07 November 2015, it was reported that in the wake of a court in Chennai (Madras) ruling in favour of m2f transgender K Prithika Yashini, she will become a police sub-inspector in the southern state. The court also ruled that the result of a police physical test, which Prithika failed after being a second too slow in a 100-metre dash, was not valid [R3.8].


On 22 September 2015, Justice Siddharth Mridul on the Delhi High Court ordered that "Shivy" a 19-year-old f2m transgender NRI (non-resident Indian), brought to India from California and forcibly enrolled at the Dayalbagh Educational Institute in Agra (which she has now left) so she could be “reformed”, be given police protection to prevent her parents from trying to apprehend her or coerce her into getting married to a man of their choice. She also sought release of her travel documents and “safe passage” to the US [R3.7].

On 19 April 2015, Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Shree Narain Shukla in the Allahabad High Court were reported to have ruled that transgender persons were entitled to the status of head of a household, allowing them to avail food security benefit through food security and ration cards [R3.6].

On 20 August 2014, the Madras high court bench in Madurai was reported to have allowed the petition of S Swapna and directed the petitioner to file a fresh application and directed the joint director of school examinations to consider the same and issue fresh SSLC and HSC certificates in her new name [R3.5].

On 28 July 2014, Additionas Sessions Judge Dr Kamini Lau was reported as having observed “Provisions for creating separate lock-ups/ prisons and making separate provisions for the transgenders/ eunuchs have been necessitated as they have full legal rights and cannot be shuttled between man and woman depending upon convenience and denying any effective legal status to them is violative of human rights.” [R3.4].

On 15 April 2014, Justices KS Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri in the Supreme Court ruled that “third gender” status for hijras or transgenders must be recognised, and they must provided with special facilities and services and not discriminated against [C3.3], [R3.2].

On 01 October 2012, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre and Chief Secretaries of all States on a petition from the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), asking for a direction to include the category of transgender people as a third category in providing various opportunities and facilities such as the voter ID card, passport, driving licence, ration card and admission to educational institutions [R3.1].

R1.5 TheIndianExpress: Cabinet approves the Transgender Persons Bill 2016 20 JUL 16
R1.4 GayStarNews: India's upper house of parliament passes landmark transgender rights bill 25 APR 15
R1.3 AustraliaNetWorkNews: India's transgender community gets official recognition in country's electoral roll 26 MAR 14
R1.2 Times of India: Electoral Commission makes it easy for first-time transgenders to vote 21 AUG 12
R1.1 CNN: India's third gender gets own identity in voter rolls 12 NOV 09
R2.4 TheTimesofIndia: Separate ID cards to be issued for transgenders 27 AUG 16
D2.3 Department of Social Justice: State Policy for Transgenders in Kerala 2015 (DRAFT) PDF 885.15kb 09 SEP 15
R2.2 TheIndianExpress: Kerala becomes first state to unveil transgender policy 12 NOV 15
R2.1 bnews: Win to Trannies 22 MAR 07
R3.9 LiveMINT: Only transgenders are third gender: Supreme Court 01 JUL 16
R3.8 BBCnews: Tamil Nadu to appoint India's first transgender police officer 07 NOV 15
R3.7 TheIndianExpress: Delhi High Court steps in to protect 19-year-old transgender from California 23 SEP 15
R3.6 TheIndianExpress: Transgenders entitled to head of household status: HC 19 APR 15
R3.5 TimesOfIndia: High Court directs change of name in certificates of transgender 20 AUG 14
R3.4 TimesOfIndia: 'Give separate jail facilities to transgenders' 28 JUL 14
C3.3 Judgment: National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and others No. 400 of 2012 PDF 356.45kb, 15 APR 14
R3.2 TimesOfIndia: Supreme Court recognizes transgenders as 'third gender' 15 APR 14
R3.1 The Hindu: Court notice to Centre, States on transgender issue 02 OCT 12

GayLawNet®™ "Exclusive" Sponsorship of this page IS available
Health, Medical Legislation/Cases/References
1.

States

On 13 January 2015, Goa minister Ramesh Tawadkar took a U turn and said that he was misunderstood and misquoted on the issue. "I was not talking about the LGBT (youths) but about drug addicted and sexually abused youths" [R1.2].

On 12 January 2015, state minister for Sports and Youth Affairs Ramesh Tawadkar was reported to have announced that the government in Goa plans to attempt to "cure" LGBT people and make them "normal", using therapy and "medicines" [R1.1].

R1.2 IBNlive: Goa minister takes a U-turn on 'curing' LGBT remark, UN flays India's intolerance towards homosexuals 13 JAN 15
R1.1 PinkNews: Goa to attempt to make gay youths 'normal' 12 JAN 15
Homosexuality, Sodomy Legislation/Cases/References
1.

National

See also: 2. Courts & Tribunals.

On 11 March 2016, it was reported that for the second time National Congress MP Shashi Tharoor's private members bill to decriminalize homosexuality by amending Section 377 was defeated by a 58-14 vote, with 1 abstention [R1.10].

On 18 December 2015, the Lok Sabha lower house of parliament, voted against a private members bill introduced by National Congress Party MP Shashi Tharoor to end the country's law that makes sex between millions of men a crime [R1.9].

On 19 December 2013, Law Minister Kapil Sibal reportedly confirmed that the government will seek a judicial review of the Supreme Court's verdict that the country's ban on gay sex is constitutional [R1.8].

On 11 December 2013, the Supreme Court overturned the 2009 judgment of the Delhi High Court reinstating Section 377 of the Penal Code making homosexuality unlawful [C2.25], [R2.24].

In August 2009, the government decided not to contest the Delhi high court ruling that legalized gay sex in July, leaving it to the supreme court to determine whether the lower court ruled correctly in overturning the British colonial-era ban [R1.7].

On 02 July 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled that a ban on gay sex between adults violated India's constitution.

See further: 2. Courts & Tribunals

The Indian Penal Code 1860, Act No. 4542 criminalizes consensual sexual relations between adults [R1.6].

Section 377 - Unnatural offences

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 1*[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine [R1.6].

Penetration is necessary to constitute this offence.

Section 377 is contrary to international human rights law [see UNHCR below].


In March 2010, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reportedly proposed an amended Section 377 reading:

"Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse with (quaere "any") animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment or either description (quaere) for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine" [R1.5].

In October 2008, the battle over the decriminalisation took an unexpected turn when the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh requested that Home Minister Shivraj Patil and Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss meet privately to discuss the matter [R1.4].

In October 2008, the Delhi High Court criticised the Indian central government (the "centre") for using inadequate evidence in its case to retain Section 377 [R1.3].


In August 2008, India's Health Minister, Anbumani Ramadoss, said that laws that criminalise gay sex should be overturned if HIV prevention, care and treatment programmes are to succeed [R1.2].


In July 2006, it was reported that health authorities were calling for a repeal of a 145-year-old law that makes gay sex a crime, fearing it is causing HIV and AIDS to spread quickly in India's homosexual community [R1.1].

2.

Courts & Tribunals

On 29 June 2016, a two-judge bench led by justice S.A. Bobde heard a fresh petition filed by Sangeet Natak Akademi awardee Navtej Singh Johar, 57, and others seeking to decriminalise consensual same-sex intercourse between adults and referred the matter to chief justice T.S. Thakur to decide whether it and the pending curative petitions challenging Section 377 can be tagged together and heard by the constitution bench [R2.34].

On 29 January 2016, it was reported that starting 02 February, the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur would hear a curative petition in an unprecedented open-court reconsideration of a controversial ruling by it that upheld the validity of a Victorian-era law that makes homosexuality illegal [R2.33].

On 19 June 2014, in possibly the first case in the country after the Supreme Court upheld Section 377 of the Penal Code, making gay sex a punishable offence, it was reported that Bangalore Police had charged seven youths under the Section in a homosexual encounter extortion case [R2.32].

On 21 April 2014, the Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and M.V. Ramana told senior counsel Anand Grover appearing for the NGO, Naz Foundation, that the Court agreed to keep in mind its ruling on transgender rights when it takes up a curative petition tomorrow seeking a review of its order prohibiting any form of gay or unnatural sex [R2.31].

On 21 April 2014, the Naz Foundation applied to the Chief Justice to request that when on Tuesday he decides whether the Koushal judgment [upholding Section 377 of the Criminal Code that criminalizes consensual gay sex] should be reopened and an open hearing should be granted or not, he takes into consideration the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment [creating legal rights for transgender people] - see Gender Identity [R2.30].

On 03 April 2014, the Supreme Court agreed to consider an open court hearing of curative petitions, filed by gay rights activists against its verdict on criminalising homosexuality [R2.29].

On 28 January 2014, Justices H. L. Dattu and S.J. Mukhopadhaya held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalizing gay sex did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity and said there were no grounds to interfere with the order [C2.28], [R2.27].

On 20 December 2013, the government filed a petition for review of the Section 377 decision in the Supreme Court. The court is expected to take up the review petition soon [R2.26].

On 11 December 2013, the Supreme Court overturned the 2009 judgment of the Delhi High Court reinstating Section 377 of the Penal Code making homosexuality unlawful [C2.25], [R2.24].

On 27 March 2012, Supreme Court justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya delayed their judgment on an appeal of the Delhi High Court verdict which decriminalised gay sex until a later date [R2.23].

On 20 March 2012, Attorney General G E Vahanvati informed the Supreme Court that the Indian government insists that it supports the Supreme Court's decision to decriminalize gay sex [R2.22].

On 05 January 2012, magistrate UK Aher in the Girgaum magistrate's court, rejected a discharge application filed by a man booked for having 'unnatural sex' with another man, despite the 2009 Delhi high court having read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that defines "unnatural sex", ruling that consensual gay sex between adults was not an offence [R2.21].

On 08 November 2011, the Supreme Court deferred its hearing on the issue of decriminalisation of gay sex among consenting adults in private and listed the case for a final hearing in February 2012 [R2.20].

On 29 August 2011, Justices G S Singhvi and H L Dattu adjourned the hearing on the issue of legalisation and decriminalisation of gay sex among consenting adults in private by ten weeks [R2.19].

On 19 April 2011, the Supreme Court deferred its hearing of petitions about the landmark decision of the Delhi high court that decriminalized gay sex in 2009 [R2.18].

On 07 February 2011, the Supreme Court dismissed an application to make the armed forces a party to the petitions supporting and opposing the Delhi high court's ruling which decriminalised homosexual acts between two consenting adults in private [R2.17]. The Court said it would hear 19 interventions – four petitions approve the 2009 Delhi High Court order and 15 oppose it [R2.16].

On 07 February 2011, the Supreme Court comprising Justice GS Singhvi and Justice AK Ganguly were to hear petitions filed by gay rights activists and political, social and religious organisations who have opposed the Delhi high court verdict decriminalising homosexual behaviour [R2.15].

On 01 April 2010, the Allahabad High Court in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh revoked a decision of the Aligarh Muslim University that suspended Shrinivas Ramchandra Siras, chairman of the school's modern languages department, who was caught in a gay sex sting in February [R2.14].

In February 2010, there were reported to be a total 16 groups challenging the July 2 Delhi High Court order decriminalizing gay sex, in the Supreme Court [R2.13].

In January 2010, the Supreme Court was expected to give a final ruling on repealing the ban on gay sex next month [R2.12].

On 20 July 2009, the Supreme Court declined to put a hold on the groundbreaking ruling of the Delhi High Court to decriminalize gay sex between consenting adults. Noting that there was "no threat of any consequences", the court asked the government to make clear its stand on the issue within two months before it revisits the matter on September 14 [R2.11].

On 14 July 2009, the Supreme Court reportedly agreed to consider a petition against a lower court's ruling that homosexuality should be decriminalised [R2.10].

On 09 July 2009, it was reported that Suresh Kaushal had filed a petition in the country’s supreme court asking for the British colonial-era law to be reinstated. Chief Justice K. Balakrishnan asked the government and campaign groups to respond to the petition [R2.9].

On 02 July 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled that "In the Indian Constitution, the right to live with dignity and the right of privacy both are recognised as dimensions of Article 21. Section 377 IPC denies a person's dignity and criminalises his or her core identity solely on account of his or her sexuality and thus violates Article 21 of the Constitution. As it stands, Section 377 IPC denies a gay person a right to full personhood which is implicit in notion of life under Article 21 of the Constitution". Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidahr said the ban violated fundamental human rights [C2.8], [R2.8].

The ruling only applies in New Delhi and can still be opposed by the government.


In October 2008, Chief Justice AP Shah of the Delhi High Court challenged argument put by additional solicitor general PP Malhotra that homosexuality is a disease [R2.7].


In September 2008, the government opposed a petition filed by gay rights activists asking the Delhi High Court to decriminalise homosexual acts between consenting adults [R2.6].


In July 2008, the Bombay High Court said that the controversial Section 377 of Indian Penal Code that deals with unnatural sex needs revision [R2.5].


In November 2004 the Delhi High Court upheld laws in the subcontinent making gay sex a criminal offence, dismissing the petition seeking review of the law [R2.4].

Previously:

In January 2003, the New Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devinder Gupta and Justice B.D. Ahmed told the government to file an affidavit within four weeks making clear its stand in regard to the law that makes homosexual relations a crime [R2.3].


On 26 August 2002, India's High Court refused to accept the state’s argument that changing the law is inappropriate because homosexuality goes against "the morality in society as a whole." Saying that the issue "could not just be brushed aside," the bench instructed the government to file its response to the petition by November 27, the third and last such deadline [R2.2].


In April 2002, the Government sort more time in Delhi High Court to file reply on a petition seeking legislation of homosexuality between consenting adults and consequent amendment to Section 377 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), which makes such a relationship a criminal offence [R2.1].

3.

UNHCR

In 1994, the United Nations Human Rights Committee affirmed in its decision Toonen v Australia that the criminalization of same-sex sexual relations between consenting adults violates Articles 2 (equal protection) and 17 (right to privacy) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

India ratified the ICCPR in 1979, and is bound by its provisions.

National
R1.10 GayStarNews: India bid to make gay sex legal fails once again 11 MAR 16
R1.9 GayStarNews: India votes to keep gay sex illegal 18 DEC 15
R1.8 GayStarNews: Indian Government will appeal Section 377 decision rather than repeal it 19 DEC 13
R1.7 The Advocate: Indian Government: Sodomy Ruling OK 02 SEP 09
R1.6 ILGA: State-Sponsored Homophobia May 2008
R1.5 Indian Express: Government sets ball rolling on repeal of gay sex law 21 MAR 10
R1.4 PinkNews.co.uk: Indian Prime Minister Intervenes in Gay Sex Decriminalisation Court Case 16 OCT 08
R1.3 PinkNews.co.uk: Delhi High Court Demands Scientific Evidence for Ban on Gay Sex 16 OCT 08
R1.2 PinkNews.co.uk: India's Health Minister Calls for Decriminalisation of Homosexuality 08 AUG 08
R1.1 Forbes News: India May Scrap Gay Sex Law Over HIV Fears 26 JUL 06
Courts & Tribunals
R2.34 liveMINT: Supreme Court refers Section 377 petition to Chief Justice 30 JUN 16
R2.33 TheEconomicTimes: Supreme Court to reconsider ruling to make homosexuality illegal 29 JAN 16
R2.32 GayStarNews: Six months after Supreme Court verdict, seven booked under homophobic law 19 JUN 14
R2.31 TheTelegraphIndia: SC to take up gay law plea 22 APR 14
R2.30 GayStarNews: India’s law banning gay sex is going back to the Supreme Court again 21 APR 14
R2.29 TheIndianExpress: Gay sex verdict: SC agrees to consider open court hearing of curative petitions 03 APR 14
C2.28 Order: Naz Foundation (India) Trust v. Suresh Kumar Koushal & Ors PDF 6.46kb, 28 JAN 14
R2.27 The Hindu: Supreme Court will not review judgment against homosexuality 28 JAN 14
R2.26 The Washington Post: India government asks court to review anti-gay law 20 DEC 13
C2.25 Judgment: Suresh Kumar Koushal & Ors. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. No. 10972 of 2013 PDF 601.72kb, 11 DEC 13
R2.24 The Advocate: India's Supreme Court Reinstates Sodomy Ban 11 DEC 13
R2.23 PinkNews: India's Supreme Court reserves judgement on decriminalisation of gay sex case 27 MAR 12
R2.22 GayStarNews: Indian government insists gay sex is ok 22 MAR 12
R2.21 Hindustan Times: Sec 377 ruling fails to get gay man reprieve in court 09 JAN 12
R2.20 Hindustan Times: SC defers hearing on decriminalisation of gay sex 08 NOV 11
R2.19 Indian Express: SC defers hearing on decriminalisation of gay sex 29 AUG 11
R2.18 The Advocate: Indian Supreme Court Defers Landmark Gay Case 19 APR 11
R2.17 Daily News & Analysis: Supreme Court dismisses plea to hear armed forces on homosexuality 07 FEB 11
R2.16 Tehelka: Supreme Court defers hearing on gay rights case to April IN 07 FEB 11
R2.15 Daily News & Analysis: Supreme Court to hear on decriminalisation of gay sex tomorrow 06 FEB 11
R2.14 The Advocate: Indian Professor Reinstated After Gay Entrapment 02 APR 10
R2.13 Agence Presse France: Opposition grows to India gay sex ruling 21 FEB 10
R2.12 PinkNews.co.uk: India awaits final ruling on gay sex 21 JAN 10
R2.11 The Advocate: Indian Court Reviews Gay Ruling 20 JUL 09
R2.10 PinkNews.co.uk: India's Supreme Court accepts challenge to ruling on gay sex 14 JUL 09
R2.9 The Advocate: India Gay Sex Ruling Challenged 09 JUL 09
C2.8 Naz Foundation (India) Trust v. Government of NCT Delhi and Others WP(C) No.7455/2001 PDF 414.56kb, 02 JUL 09
R2.8 PinkNews.co.uk: Indian court rules to decriminalise gay sex 02 JUL 09
R2.7 PinkNews.co.uk: Judge Slams Indian Government for Calling Homosexuality A Disease 21 OCT 08
R2.6 PinkNews.co.uk: Indian Government Argues to Retain Ban on Gay Sex 26 SEP 08
R2.5 PinkNews.co.uk: India's "Unnatural Sex" Law Should be Revised Says High Court Judge 29 July 08
R2.4 MCV: Indian Court Upholds Laws 12 NOV 04
R2.3 Associated Press: Government Must Clarify Stand On Gay Relations 16 JAN 03
R2.2 Far Eastern Economic Review: Closet Drama 03 OCT 02
R2.1 Hindustan Times: Government Seeks Time to Reply on Public Interest Litigation 23 APR 02
Marriage Legislation/Cases/References
1.

National

On 27 July 2011, a lesbian couple that was granted an informal marriage by a civil court in Haryana were reportedly put under 24-hour police guard to protect them from being targeted for a so-called "honor killing" by outraged family members and the Court served notice on 14 relatives and villagers who had threatened them with "dire consequences" [R1.5].

On 15 July 2011, two women, Beena, 20, and Savita, 25, who were married in the Gurgaon court have sought police protection from the court, fearing a threat to their lives as relatives of Savita opposed their marriage and have threatened to kill the two [R1.4].

See also: 2. Courts &Tribunals [R2.1]


In March 2010, a gay male couple's groundbreaking marriage in the northeast Indian state of Manipur ended in divorce two days later following stiff opposition to the union by the couple's families. Police officers reportedly detained Sandip, 25, and Nikhil, 28, for several hours and persuaded them to dissolve the marriage. The marriage had no legal standing in India [R1.3].


In January 2003, a civil unions (Pacte Civil de Solidarite) ceremony conducted by a senior consular official from the French government is thought to have put increased pressure on the Indian government to strike down the anti-gay laws which date back to the days of the British empire [R1.2].


In May 2001, a lesbian couple in India married in a Hindu ceremony in what is believed to be one of the first gay weddings in the country [R1.1].

The marriage still needs the approval of the local registrar to be legalised. So far the registry office has refused to grant approval because Indian law does not recognise gay marriages.

2.

Courts & Tribunals

On 26 April 2012, the the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed police authorities to provide adequate police protection to lesbian couple Swaran Kaur and Harsharan Kaur, both residents of Bathinda, fearing threat to their lives from their parents and family members for indulging in same sex marriage [R2.2].

In September 2011, Justice Rajan Gupta in the Punjab and Haryana High Court was reported to have directed the government to consider the plea of a same-sex couple seeking protection from their families after having 'married', which may lead the Court to decide whether a same-sex union is valid under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 [R2.1].

R1.5 GlobalPost: India's first married lesbians get 24-hour protection 27 JUL 11
R1.4 Hindustan Times: Same-sex couple fears for life 24 JUL 11
R1.3 The Advocate: Police Persuade Indian Gay Couple to Divorce 31 MAR 10
R1.2 Newindpress.com: Gay Wedding Puts Spotlight on Indian Laws 07 JAN 03
R1.1 BBC Online News: Gay Couple Hold Hindu Wedding 30 MAY 01
R2.2 The Indian Express: Same sex marriage: HC orders protection for couple 26 APR 12
R2.1 The Indian Express: High Court to decide on same-sex marriage 15 SEP 11
Military Legislation/Cases/References
See also: [GENDER IDENTITY]
1.

State

On 21 April 2014, six transgender Indian women, or hijras, were reported to have become the first of their kind to be accepted as cadets in the paramilitary Home Guards in the city of Madurai where they are undergoing training as part of a pilot program to better integrate LGBTI people into the Indian mainstream [R1.1].

R1.1 GayStarNews: Indian paramilitary force accepts first transgender cadets 21 APR 14

GayLawNet®™ "Exclusive" Sponsorship of this page IS available
Parenting, Adoption, Fostering Legislation/Cases/References
1.

State

On 06 August 2014, the Indian federal Cabinet reportedly decided to officially bar same-sex couples from adopting children, a move that some say can also be extended to single members of the LGBT community. A bill amending the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 will now be sent to parliament for ratification and the Indian president's signature before being enacted [R1.1].

As at 08 August 2014, India's current law reportedly allows unmarried men and women above the age of 30 to adopt, irrespective of sexual orientation [R1.1].

Central Adoption Resource Authority guidelines prevent foreigners in same-sex relationships from adopting children in India [R1.1].

R1.1 LGBTweekly: Indian federal Cabinet bars adoption by same-sex couples 08 AUG 14