Author: Ralph Anand L, School of Excellence in Law, TNDALU, Chennai
To the Point:
The Struggle of LGBTQ+ individuals has been almost around forever. From decriminalising homosexuality to their rights for horizontal reservations India has witnessed an evolution in identifying and fulfilling the requirements of these citizens. The case of MA Vs Superintendent of Police and Ors. (2025) by the Madras High Court can be considered as a step further in identification of their rights. This judgement gives remains a hope for the LGBTQ+ citizens of the country establishing that families are born not only through marriage but through various other mediums as well. The court determined the concept of “Deed of familial Association” rendered in a judgement from the Madras High Court previously and upheld the principles of Human Right to live with dignity and Liberty.
Abstract:
The Association of family is perceived as sociological institution in the society. Traditionally, Family is considered to be the integration of a man and woman along with their offsprings. Modern era seeks to revolutionize the conception of families. Various countries have recognised the unison of same sex couples as family and have ensured many other rights such as Adoption right. In India, though homosexual orientation has been de-criminalised, still legal recognition of same-sex has been denied. The question of whether LGBTQ+ individuals can live as a family has questioned at various instances. The Madras High Court has commented on this issue in its recent judgement in a writ of habeous corpus. This article gives insights on the facts and issues of the case as well as its legal preponderance established by the court in deciding this case.
Use of Legal Jargons:
This case delving into sociological aspect of the society, the court has reported several terms associated in the recognition of the Individuals. This includes the court in identifying terms such as LGBTQ+ which abbreviates to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and other recognised terminologies. The court has tried to iterated that Homosexuality or Queerness has become normal in the state though many parents resist to accept. The court has also acknowledged the term ‘Chosen Family’ being used in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence. This was also approved in the case of Prasanna J. V. S. Sushma (2023) in recognising the civil union of LGTBQ+ partners. The court also emphasised on the Yogyakarta Principles which was earlier upheld by the Apex court in the case of NALSA V. Union of India (2014) ensuring protection in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
The Proof:
After the de-criminalisation of Homosexuality in the case of Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India (2018), the country has witnessed remarkable changes in protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. Yogyakarta Principles which illustrates on sexual orientation and gender identity of the LGBTQ+ individuals was implemented as a part of International Human Rights Law and this has been upheld by the Indian courts in various cases. These principles exfoliate light into rights of queer individuals such as Right to Privacy without arbitrary or unlawful interference, Protection from unlawful attacks damaging their honour and their reputation and a right to found a family. The Supreme Court in NALSA V. Union of India (2014) has recognised these principles stating that these have sufficient legal and historical justification in the country. The court in Deepika Singh V. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022) set out that domestic, unmarried live-in relationships or queer partnerships and such of those different from traditional construct of families can be recognised as familial relationships and they should not be placed in a disadvantageous position.
MA V. Superintendent of Police and ors. started with a writ of Habeus Corpus by the petitioner stating that her friend is being detained by the detenue’s family members and to set her at liberty. Upon enquiry, the court was enlightened that the detenue was a lesbian being physically abused and harassed by her family for being a queer. The Madras High Court under Justice. V. Lakshminarayanan and Justice G.R. Swaminathan reported that though in the case of Supriya Chakraborthy V. Union of India (2023) the apex court refused to legalise same-sex couples, this did not refrain them from forming families. In their judgement, they have observed the case of Shakti Vahini V. Union of India (2018) asserting that Right of choice form an insegregable facet of liberty and dignity. The court stated that same sex relationships has the applicability of same principles and ratios as laid down in context of Inter-caste and Inter-religious marriages of previous cases rendered by the courts.
Caselaws:
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) V. Union of India (2018)
This case dealt with the recognition of Transgender Persons in India. The Supreme Court of India held that transgender individuals, empowered by the constitution of India, have a right to self-identify their gender as male, female or third gender. This recognised the fundamental rights of the citizen under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian constitution. This marks as a landmark victory for the transgender community in India
Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India (2018)
This case makes a landmark judgement in the history of criminal law in India. Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section – 377, which has criminalised any act of homosexuality was de-criminalised by the Supreme Court of India. The court held that consensual homosexual relation between adults cannot be considered as an offence. The court uplifted the principles of Right to dignity, Right to privacy and Right to sexual autonomy in this case and affirmed that constitutional morality prevails over social morality.
S. Sushma V. Commissioner of Police (2021)
This case had similar issues where the petitioner was harassed both by the family and public authorities for being a LGBTQ+ individual. The Madras High Court held that such harassment led to human rights violation and it laid down guideline for the protection of LGBTQ+ individuals from harassment of public authorities. The court calling for ban of conversion therapy across the state was later implemented by the Indian Medical Association across India.
Supriya Chakraborthy V. Union of India (2023)
This case dealt with legal recognition of same sex marriages. The Supreme Court in its constitutional bench of 5 judges denied legal recognition in 3:2. The apex court observed that recognition of marriage is a matter for parliament and not judiciary. The court then directed the Union government to establish a committee to explore and recommend legal rights of same sex couples.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court in its decision in MA V. Superintendent of Police and Ors. marks a milestone in the judiciary’s ongoing endeavour in upholding the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals. Drawing influence from international frameworks like Yogyakarta principles and precedents of NALSA, Navtej Singh, Sushma, the judiciary has never refrained from emphasizing that dignity, liberty and autonomy form non-negotiable constitutional values. While legal recognition of same sex is still in progress, courts have increasingly recognised the legitimacy of chosen families and the need for protection against societal coercion. This case acknowledges that family is not solely a product of traditional structures but a bond founded on mutual love, respect, and choice. Though challenges persist, the LGBTQ+ community hope that inclusivity and equality would become absolute in future days within India’s legal and social fabric.
FAQS
What was the significance of the case MA V. Superintendent of Police and Ors. (2025)
The significance of this case is that it reaffirms the right of LGBTQ+ individuals to form familial associations beyond traditional marriage. Upholding the concept of “Deed of Familial Association” the court reinforced the fundamental right to liberty and dignity especially among queer individuals.
What are the Yogyakarta Principles? Relevance of them in Indian courts
The Yogyakarta Principles are a set of international human rights principles that apply to sexual orientation and gender identity. Indian courts, particularly in NALSA v. Union of India (2014), have acknowledged these principles, using them to affirm rights such as privacy, dignity, and the freedom to form a family for LGBTQ+ individuals.
What role does the concept of “Chosen Family” play in LGBTQ+ jurisprudence according to Indian courts?
“Chosen Family” refers to a group of individuals bound by mutual affection, care, and support, rather than biological or marital ties. In MA V. Superintendent of Police, the court acknowledged this concept, asserting that LGBTQ+ individuals have the right to form familial bonds based on choice and emotional connection, deserving of legal and social recognition.
