In the vast expanse of India, a land steeped in ancient wisdom and culture, where the echoes of tradition sing of respect for all beings, there exists a paradox. Transgender people, known as hijras, for millennia have been woven into the fabric of society, acknowledged, even revered. Yet today, this same community stands on the precipice of suffering, their dignity bruised, their existence imperiled.

Despite the Supreme Court rulings and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act of 2019, discrimination festers and crimes against trans people continue to rise unchecked. 

The 2019 law, once a beacon of hope, now seems a faint whisper amid societal prejudice. India, for all its storied past, must reckon with the reality that its ancient recognition means little if the present offers only misery.

The figures, as the National Crime Record Bureau presents, suggest a seemingly low rate of crime against trans people. At a glance, one might draw comfort from these numbers, imagining progress in a society long burdened by prejudice. But beneath this veneer lies a graver truth: Activists, ever watchful and weary, suspect gross underreporting. The numbers, it seems, tell only half the story.

In the sprawling ledger of tragedy that is the Crimes in India: 2022 report, the NCRB lists 29,356 souls lost to murder, and only nine of these were trans people. A mere number on a page, some might say. But this figure, far from reassuring, is chilling in its implication. 

Among the grim tally of 110,140 cases of adult kidnapping and abduction, only one trans victim emerges from the records — a stark and haunting singularity. The NCRB reports no instances of rape, sexual assault, or mob lynching involving trans people. This absence is, however, not a triumph, but a troubling silence. It raises the question: Do these crimes not occur, or do they vanish from the pages of the records? The silence of statistics can be as deafening as the violence they fail to capture.

Another NCRB report lists only 236 trans people as victims of rape — an astonishingly low figure in a landscape where so much remains hidden. The report does not include any cases of rape, nor the heinous crimes of buying or selling minors for prostitution, in which trans people were victims. The true scale of suffering, it seems, remains buried beneath a system that fails to recognize or record their plight fully.

Parliament passed trans rights law in 2019

Parliament on Nov. 26, 2019, took what seemed a bold step towards justice when it passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill. 

The law, as written, promised protection and welfare for India’s trans community, declaring that crimes against them that range from forced labor, to denial of access to public spaces, and even removal from households and villages, would not be tolerated. The law also acknowledged physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, or economic abuse as offenses.

Penalties for these offenses — forced labor, denial of rights, or various forms of abuse — under the law are modest at best, ranging from six months to two years’ imprisonment, along with a fine. 

India in recent years has seen a disturbing rise in cases of mob lynching against trans persons. One such tragic incident occurred on Feb. 13, 2024. Raju, a 50-year-old trans person from Telangana state’s Nizamabad district, fell victim to brutal mob violence after a false rumor of child kidnapping swept through their village — a village they had called home.

Raju, a cattle herder and beggar, was simply trying to make ends meet when the mob, blinded by fear and ignorance, turned on them.

Authorities would later clear Raju’s name, confirming they had no involvement in any such crimes. But the truth came too late. Raju had succumbed to their injuries by the time they reached the local hospital, a life senselessly lost to hysteria and hatred.

A similar tragedy unfolded in Hyderabad in 2018. 

Rumors of child kidnapping and burglary sparked fear and suspicion, culminating in a brutal attack on a group of trans people. One was killed, and another severely injured as the mob, driven by unfounded accusations, unleashed their violence. 

A group of Kanwariyas, devotees of Lord Shiva on a sacred pilgrimage, on July 29 brutally beat a trans woman in Uttar Pradesh state and ripped her clothes off after they wrongly suspected her of theft. The woman’s fate seemed sealed as the mob grew angrier, but authorities intervened in time. They rescued her and brought her to a police station. Authorities confirmed what the frenzy of the mob had failed to see: She was not a thief, merely another victim of suspicion and violence.

A group of trans women on Aug. 16 set out for RG Kar Medical College to join a protest against the West Bengal government, outraged by the gang rape of a trainee doctor at the hospital. Their journey, however, took a dark turn at the Rabindra Sadan metro station. 

One of the trans women alleged a Railway Protection Force officer, under the pretense of “checking” her gender, groped her. The group later filed a case against him, exposing yet another instance of indignity faced by trans people in public spaces where even their very identity is subject to humiliating scrutiny.

Report: 92 percent of trans people have faced physical or verbal abuse

Souvik Saha, founder of Jamshedpur Queer Circle, an LGBTQ organization working on a grassroots level to bridge the gap by conducting sensitization workshops with law enforcement agencies and local communities to foster greater understanding and inclusivity, highlighted to the Washington Blade the severe challenges that trans people in Jharkhand state and across India face.

He noted trans people often encounter hostility, harassment, and dismissive attitudes from the police when they try to file First Information Reports. Shah said the crux of the problem lays in the lack of sensitization and awareness within the police force regarding trans identities. This systemic issue not only discourages the community from seeking justice but also perpetuates the cycle of abuse and marginalization they endure.

“As the founder of Jamshedpur Queer Circle, we have witnessed firsthand the systemic discrimination faced by transgender individuals, particularly when they attempt to interact with law enforcement,” said Saha. 

“A report by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in 2018 highlights that 92 percent of transgender individuals have faced physical or verbal abuse, often by law enforcement officials themselves,” he added. “Many police stations lack gender sensitization programs that could foster respect and professionalism when interacting with LGBTQ individuals. As a result, transgender individuals are deterred from seeking justice, and crimes against them often go unreported or uninvestigated.”

Saha highlighted a particularly troubling case involving a trans woman in Jharkhand who officers relentlessly mocked when she attempted to file a domestic violence complaint at a local police station. Saha said her ordeal is a glaring example of how law enforcement practices not only fail to protect trans people but actively alienate and further victimize them. 

Saha remarked that NCRB data showing 236 trans victims without any registered cases is both alarming and unsurprising. He emphasized this statistic starkly reflects the deep-seated systemic issues that prevent trans individuals from accessing justice. 

Saha added the barriers to reporting crimes, combined with a lack of trust in law enforcement, create an environment where many victims remain unheard of and their cases unrecorded.

“While the Supreme Court’s NALSA judgment in 2014 and the subsequent Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, were landmark decisions for the transgender community, the reality on the ground tells a different story,” he said. “Despite these legal protections, violence against transgender individuals persists due to deeply ingrained social prejudices, lack of awareness, and failure in the implementation of these laws.”

Saha added one “of the biggest issues is the gap between policy and practice. Although the law mandates the protection of transgender individuals, societal attitudes are slow to change.”

He pointed to a 2018 International Commission of Jurists study that notes 73 percent of trans people said they have experienced violence from family members, while 47 percent faced physical assault from members of the public.  

“Even though the legal framework exists, enforcement agencies and local administrations often lack the willingness or training to implement it effectively,” said Saha.

He told the Blade that his organization has encountered numerous cases where authorities did not respond to trans people who faced mob violence or domestic abuse. Saha emphasized  societal stigma and deep-rooted biases, reinforced by inadequate law enforcement, contribute to ongoing violence and discrimination against the transgender community. 

“As a society, we need more awareness campaigns, stricter enforcement mechanisms, and a cultural shift to create an environment where transgender individuals feel safe and respected,” he said. 

Without these changes, he warned, the cycle of marginalization will persist.

Kalki Subramaniam, a trans activist, queer artist and actor who is a member of the National Transgender Council, during an interview with the Blade discussed the mistreatment of trans people in police stations across India.

She said law enforcement often do not treat trans people with dignity. 

“When a trans woman is raped, her FIR is almost never registered,” added Subramaniam. “That could be because the police are not sensitized enough about transgender people around the country.” 

“Across the country, the situation is the same,” she told the Blade. “Even though there are lots of changes legally, police personnel need to be sensitized on a wider network. A few states have done some work, but the majority of Indian states have not.”

Subramaniam in response to the reported number of trans rape victims expressed deep shock, emphasizing violence against the trans community is widespread across India. She pointed out the figures only represent documented cases, while hundreds of crimes — particularly violence and rape — remain unreported and undocumented. 

Subramaniam highlighted the persistent stereotyping of trans individuals, adding only extensive government-led sensitization programs can undo it.

“As a member of the National Transgender Council under the Ministry of Social Justice, I have already emphasized in meetings that all ministries and departments must be sensitized on transgender rights and issues,” said Subramaniam. “Once again, I will talk about the rape issue in the meeting in the ministry.”

Ankush Kumar is a reporter who has covered many stories for Washington and Los Angeles Blades from Iran, India, and Singapore. He recently reported for the Daily Beast. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is on Twitter at @mohitkopinion. 

The Delhi High Court on Aug. 13 directed the Indian government to clarify its stance on non-consensual sexual offenses against LGBTQ people and men under the country’s revised penal code. The court’s order has spotlighted the gaps in the legal framework, urging the government to address the protection of these vulnerable groups within the new law.

The Indian LGBTQ community on Sept. 6, 2018, celebrated one of its most significant legal victories when the Supreme Court struck down Section 377 of the country’s colonial-era penal code that criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations. The Supreme Court invalidated the law for consensual acts, but it retained provisions that concern non-consensual sex to protect transgender people and other vulnerable communities.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which revised the existing penal code, took effect on July 1 and entirely omits the law.

“Where is that provision? There is no provision at all,” asked the court. “There has to be something. The question is that if it is not there, then is it an offense? If an offense is not there and if it is obliterated, then it is not an offense.”

The petitioner who approached the Delhi High Court said the omission of protections in the new law could have unforeseen consequences. The petitioner, lawyer Gantavya Gulati, argued that even after the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling that decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations, Section 377 continued to provide crucial protection to men and LGBTQ people from non-consensual sexual acts.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, in its 2023 report on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, noted that omitting Section 377 would result in the absence of penalties for non-consensual sexual offenses against men and trans people, and for acts of bestiality. The committee, therefore, recommended including Section 377 in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The Supreme Court in its 2018 ruling referred to the portions of Section 377 that criminalized consensual sex as “irrational, indefensible, and manifestly arbitrary.” The Supreme Court at the time emphasized authorities used Section 377 as a weapon to harass LGBTQ people, leading to widespread discrimination.

“Persons who are homosexuals have a fundamental right to live with dignity,” said the Supreme Court. “We further declare that such groups (LGBTQ) are entitled to the protection of equal laws, and are entitled to be treated in society as human beings without any stigma being attached to any of them. We further direct that Section 377, insofar as it criminalizes homosexual sex and transgender sex between consenting adults, is unconstitutional.”

Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on Aug. 12 led a bench of justices who heard the case that Gulati brought.

The petitioner argued that “the absence of Section 377 of the Indian penal code poses a threat to every individual, but especially to LGBTQ persons.” The petitioner also highlighted that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita does not include any protections for a man who is sexually assaulted by another man.

The Indian government contended the court could not compel parliament to enact a specific provision, even in the presence of a legal anomaly. The government’s counsel emphasized a motion had already been submitted, highlighting this issue to the national government, and it is currently under consideration. The High Court, led by Manmohan, in response directed the government to return on Aug. 28 to clarify its position on non-consensual sexual offenses in light of Section 377’s omission.

The remnants of Section 377 after the 2018 judgment were gender-neutral, offering protection regardless of gender. When the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita came into effect, however, the government completely omitted this provision from the new law. It failed to introduce an alternative to protect male rape victims and trans people. Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead defines rape in a highly gendered manner: As an act where a man’s penis penetrates a woman’s vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus, or compels her to do so with him or another person. This definition narrows the scope of the law, failing to provide adequate protection for LGBTQ individuals.

A report the Guardian published in 2018 found 71 percent of men respondents reported being abused, yet 84.9 percent of them never disclosed their experiences to anyone. The report highlighted the primary reasons for this silence were shame (55.6 percent), followed by confusion (50.9 percent), fear (43.5 percent), and guilt (28.7 percent). The findings shed light on the profound psychological barriers that prevent male survivors from seeking help or sharing their stories.

Gulati recently spoke to the Washington Blade about the case.

He said his concern is the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in its current form primarily frames rape as an act committed by a man against a woman. This narrow definition, he argued, fails to encompass the full spectrum of sexual abuse endured by trans people and men, particularly those within the LGBTQ community.

Gulati emphasized that while there are existing laws that address various forms of sexual violence, they often fall short in specifically protecting these marginalized groups in the way that is urgently needed. He underscored this significant omission within the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita indicates a pressing need for reform. Gulati suggested the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita must be thoughtfully revised and expanded to ensure that every person, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, is afforded the protection they deserve from sexual abuse.

“Whether Parliament’s decision was deliberate or not, the removal of Section 377 provision has raised concerns,” Gulati told the Blade. “Section 377 of the Indian penal code covered important issues, like bestiality and other non-consensual acts, that are not clearly addressed in the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). By leaving out this provision, the law may no longer provide the same level of protection against these acts. It’s a decision that has significant consequences, especially for those who are vulnerable.”

He also said the roles of the courts and parliament are different in a democracy.

The courts’ job is to interpret the law and make sure it is applied fairly, while parliament is responsible for creating and changing laws. Gulati said courts can point out when a law is missing or needs improvement, but they cannot force parliament to make a specific law. Gulati said that the government’s position reflects this balance of power, acknowledging only elected representatives have the authority to make laws.

Sudhanshu Latad, the dedicated advocacy manager at Humsafar Trust, an organization at the forefront of promoting LGBTQ rights in India, also spoke with the Blade.

Latad reflected on the crucial role the judiciary has historically played in bridging gaps within existing legal frameworks, particularly when they fall short of safeguarding specific groups or subgroups. Latad said the Delhi High Court’s decision to hear the Section 377 case is emblematic of this judicial intervention.

“We hope that the Honorable Delhi High Court orders the parliament to create a provision to separately address protection of transgender persons and LGBTQ+ community or reinstitute Section 377 until such provisions are made separately in BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita),” said Latad. “Section 63 of BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) primarily presents itself to be written with a heteronormative perspective.”

“While if read with the NALSA vs Union of India judgment 2014, trans women may be able to seek recourse under this, there is an element of ambiguity for assigned males at birth nonbinary persons,” he added. “It does though take into consideration any person raping a woman as it refers to objects being used for the purpose of rape, which may be the case in an instance of woman or nonbinary persons raping a woman.”

Latad told the Washington Blade the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s introduction is a pivotal point of transformation for the Indian legal system and strengthening it to a position to be able to govern and protect a country with the highest population in the world may be a strenuous affair. He said rape and other sensitive topics may need longer discussions.

“Hence, I feel this is a great opportunity — a clean slate — to introduce a robust gender-neutral law against rape,” said Latad. “I am hopeful that parliament will view this the same way and will take into consideration the recommendations made by the Standing Committee. If they do not retain Section 377 to protect consent, I hope they introduce something equivalent that protects every citizen of the country from rape.”

Ankush Kumar is a reporter who has covered many stories for Washington and Los Angeles Blades from Iran, India, and Singapore. He recently reported for the Daily Beast. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is on Twitter at @mohitkopinion. 

India’s LGBTQ community is watching Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign with hopeful anticipation.

“Can she be the catalyst for change we’ve been waiting for?” is the question echoing through the colorful streets of India’s metropolises. With her history of advocating for LGBTQ rights, Harris’s candidacy feels like a rainbow beacon in the political storm. As her campaign gains momentum, the Indian LGBTQ community finds itself not just spectators but fervent cheerleaders, hoping her leadership might inspire similar strides in their land. 

Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, who was born into a Brahmin family in 1938, and her grandfather, PV Gopalan, who hailed from the quaint village of Thulasendrapuram in Tamil Nadu state, link Harris to India’s rich cultural tapestry. This connection not only invigorates her campaign as she seeks the White House, but also resonates deeply with LGBTQ Indians who see in her a beacon of progressive change.

Harris’s grandfather later moved to New Delhi to become a civil servant in British-ruled India, paving the way for Gopalan’s journey to the U.S. Her mother’s pursuit of biomedical science at the University of California, Berkeley planted the seeds for her future political aspirations. 

The Independent reports Harris’s uncle, Balachandran, from Delhi and her aunt, Sarala, from Chennai still visit their local temple about once a year, keeping the family tethered to their village and cultural roots.

The State Department notes the relationship between India and the U.S. is one of the most strategic and consequential of the 21st century. 

‘The U.S. supports India’s emergence as a leading global power and a vital partner in promoting a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region,” it reads. 

Harris during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the U.S. in June 2023 underscored the deep-rooted ties between the two countries, highlighting shared democratic values and the significant contributions of Indian Americans. 

India in 2018 decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations. 

The Indian Supreme Court last October ruled against marriage equality. The justices have agreed to consider an appeal of their ruling.

Harris during a 2023 interview emphasized she has been dedicated to human rights, equality, and LGBTQ issues throughout her career. 

Harris was California’s attorney general when she declined to defend Proposition 8, a same-sex marriage ban that voters in her state approved in 2008.

The U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2013, heard oral arguments in a case that challenged Prop 8. The justices in a 5-4 ruling said anti-gay groups did not have standing to defend the ban and allowed a federal court ruling that declared it unconstitutional to remain in place.

Same-sex couples have been able to marry in California since June 28, 2013.

“It was clear that this is a case that is about fundamental notions of justice and equality and liberty,” Harris told the Blade after the Supreme Court’s oral arguments.

President Joe Biden in 2021 signed a memo that committed the U.S. to promoting LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad as part of the Biden-Harris administration’s overall foreign policy.

Harris during a 2023 press conference with Ghanaian President Nana Afuko-Addo that took place in Accra, his country’s capital, noted “a great deal of work in my career has been to address human rights issues, equality issues across the board, including as it relates to the LGBT community.”

“I feel very strongly about the importance of supporting the freedom and supporting and fighting for equality among all people and that all people be treated equally,” said Harris. “This is an issue that we consider, and I consider to be a human rights issue and that will not change.”

Ghana is among the countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized. 

Harris’s visit to the country coincided with debate over a bill that would, among other things, criminalize LGBTQ allyship. Afuko-Addo has yet to sign the measure — the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill — that MPs passed in February.

Manvendra Singh Gohil, who describes himself as the world’s first openly gay prince, is from Gujarat state and is an activist who runs Lakshya Trust. He told the Washington Blade that Harris is seen not just as a powerful person, but also a serious candidate. Gohil highlighted she embodies not only the hope of representation but also the merit, resonating deeply with the global LGBTQ community.

“Merit and diversity are not mutually exclusive,” he said. “There is merit in diversity, but we must make an effort to look for diversity in merit, too. I wish Kamala all the best and hope that she can carry the energy and dreams of the millions. If she is elected, I hope she serves to be the president for the entire country, the Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike.”

Deepak Kashyap, India’s first openly gay psychologist, told the Blade that Indians view Harris with hope.

“The LGBTQ community, for better or for worse, across the world, follow American examples to quite an extent,” said Kashyap. “Holding the presidency means holding the hopes and dreams of communities who find themselves at the mercy of every election cycle. I wish you well and hope to meet you in the Oval Office someday.”

Harris has often reminisced in interviews about her childhood visits to Thulasendrapuram, fondly recalling walks on the Chennai beach with her grandfather when she was just five. Though those memories of sun-soaked sands linger, she hasn’t set foot in India since becoming vice president.

Her nostalgic tales add a touch of personal warmth to her political journey, endearing her to the Indian LGBTQ community and beyond.

Negha Shahin, the first transgender woman to win an award at the 52nd Kerala State Film Awards and a native of Tamil Nadu, told the Blade that while Harris’s connection to state is heartwarming, it doesn’t directly influence her stance on LGBTQ issues. Shahin pointed out it would be a stretch to attribute Harris’s progressive views on LGBTQ rights to her mother’s background.

“What truly matters in understanding the struggles faced by the trans and queer community is the need for proper education and an open mind,” said Shahin. “Kamala Harris has spoken out about trans rights because she recognizes the importance of these issues and the need to address the discrimination and challenges faced by the LGBTQIA+ community.”

“Her advocacy stems from a broader commitment to equality and justice, rather than any specific cultural influence,” she added.

Shahin said it would be a monumental moment if Harris wins.

“If she wins also I wish it will impact the Indian LGBTQIA community,” said Shahin. “If she holds a position of power her administration might engage in diplomatic efforts to encourage other nations to advance human rights, including LGBTQIA+ rights. This could lead to international pressure on countries like India to improve their legal and social stance on LGBTQIA+ issues.”

Harish Iyer, an Indian activist who participated in the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program in 2016, told the Blade the LGBTQ community needs world leaders who are allies and community members.

“Kamala Harris’s ascend to the top of the Democratic ticket is thus a ray of hope,” said Iyer. “She has been unwavering in her allyship. In a world of deniers of queerdom, she is in sync with the ground realities of queer existence.”

Michael K. Lavers contributed to this article.

Ankush Kumar is a reporter who has covered many stories for Washington and Los Angeles Blades from Iran, India, and Singapore. He recently reported for the Daily Beast. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is on X at @mohitkopinion.

The Indian Home Ministry in a surprising development on July 15 sent a note to state and territorial officials and prison administrators that acknowledges queer prisoners regularly face discrimination and violence because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

The government has asked all states and territories ensure queer people receive equal rights in their prison. The government has also instructed state and territorial officials to prevent discrimination in relation to accessing goods and services inside their prisons, especially visitation rights.

The directive mandates prison officials allow inmates to meet with family members, relatives, friends, and legal representatives at least once every two weeks.

Referencing the Model Prison Manual, 2016, the government emphasized prisoners should be granted reasonable facilities to see or speak with their family members, relatives, friends, and legal representatives. This access is crucial for preparing an appeal, securing bail, or arranging the management of property, and family affairs. The directive is also seen as a significant effort to ensure LGBTQ inmates’ rights and dignity are upheld.

The ruling government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has, for the first time, explicitly referenced the “queer community” in a directive that seeks to end discrimination against them. This directive marks a significant shift in government policy.

It states conversations during these interviews should be limited to private and domestic matters, explicitly prohibiting any references to prison administration, other prisoners, or politics. 

According to the Model Prison Manual, 2016, Rule 8.03 states the number of people who may interview a prisoner at one time shall ordinarily be limited to three. The manual also directs interviews with female prisoners should, if possible, take place in female-specific cells or rooms.

“It is reiterated that these provisions equally apply to members of the queer community, allowing them to meet a person of their choice without any discrimination or judgment,” it reads.

The Home Ministry has also urged authorities to make prison officials at all levels more sensitive to queer inmates.

It emphasized the importance of treating all people equally in a fair and just manner, with a particular focus on ensuring that no one, especially those belonging to the queer community, faces any form of discrimination.

“Prisoners may communicate with their visitors, namely family members, relatives and friends through physical or virtual mode, under proper supervision of prison authorities,” reads the directive. “Visitors to inmates shall be verified/authenticated through biometric verification/identification.”

The directive also notes foreign prisoners may communicate with their family members and consular representatives, as rules dictate.

According to the report “Lost Identity: Transgender Persons in Indian Prisons,” the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative published, a total of 214 transgender people were incarcerated in different prisons across the country between May 2018 and April 2019.

The report noted a glaring lack of awareness programs among prisoners regarding the legal recognition of trans people as a legal identity, with the sole exception of Karnataka state since 2014. The report also highlighted a significant oversight: No trans people had been hired by prison departments in any state or territory.

The report further pointed out none of the prisons included any courses in their Prison Training Institute’s curriculum that focused on awareness and sensitization of LGBTQ communities and their rights.

The Supreme Court in 2018 took a monumental step towards prison reform.

A 3-member committee that now retired Justice Amitava Roy examined the myriad issues facing the Indian prison system and made a series of recommendations. Persistent prison overcrowding and overall conditions are two of the myriad issues the committee reviewed.

The committee in 2022 issued its report, which included a chapter titled “Transgender Prisoners.”

This chapter emphasized efforts to separate trans people from other prisoners for safety and security reasons must not lead to their seclusion or isolation. It also underscored the need to ensure measures undertaken to protect trans prisoners do not inadvertently result in their marginalization, highlighting the importance of maintaining their integration and dignity within the prison community.

Sadam Hanjabam, founder of Ya.all, northeast India’s first registered LGBTQ youth-led organization that the U.N. recognizes, told the Washington Blade the ministry’s announcement is a good step. He said officials are not only looking at transgender community but LGBTQ as a whole spectrum.

“It is hopeful that at least people will have access to services without discrimination whether legally or in prison services,” said Hanjabam. “We hope that it could be this is towards more inclusive step.”

Ankush Kumar is a reporter who has covered many stories for Washington and Los Angeles Blades from Iran, India, and Singapore. He recently reported for the Daily Beast. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is on X at @mohitkopinion.

On July 10, as India’s Supreme Court was engrossed in a pivotal review petition concerning marriage equality, an unexpected twist unfolded.

Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the court’s most senior judge, made the surprising decision to recuse himself from considering the pleas. This unforeseen development added a dramatic layer to a historic and closely watched judicial review.

The pleas seek a review of the Supreme Court’s ruling from last year that declined to legally recognize same-sex marriage. Reports indicate Khanna cited personal reasons for his recusal, adding a layer of intrigue to the already high-stakes proceeding.

In the wake of Khanna’s unexpected recusal, the Supreme Court is set to undergo a significant shift.

According to the court’s procedural rules, Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud will reconstitute a new 5-judge constitution bench. This pivotal move marks a crucial step in the ongoing legal saga, ensuring the review of the marriage equality case continues with a fresh panel at the helm.

The Supreme Court, led by Chandrachud, on July 9 made a crucial decision regarding the review petition. It declined to grant an open court hearing, stating the constitutional bench review would be conducted in chambers rather than in open court.

The Supreme Court’s clarification came after petitioners, challenging last October’s marriage equality ruling, fervently urged the top court for an open court hearing. Their plea sought transparency and public scrutiny, hoping to bring the issue back into the spotlight.

The court in its October 2023 ruling said the power to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples lies with parliament, not the judiciary, underscoring the need for legislative action to address this crucial issue.

Although the top court refused to grant marriage rights to the queer community in India, it did recognize their right to live free from discrimination. The court affirmed queer people should have the same access to goods and services as their heterosexual counterparts, ensuring protection against bias and unequal treatment in everyday life. This decision, while falling short of full marriage rights, marked a crucial step forward in the fight for equality and dignity for the LGBTQ community in India.

The Supreme Court last year in a landmark ruling said transgender people in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under the existing legal provisions.

Neeraj Kishan Kaul brought the review petition before the Supreme Court, requesting an open hearing on the case seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

The petition specifically addressed the inclusion of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) of 1954, the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969, and the Citizenship Act of 1955, as well as under common law and other existing statutes. This plea highlighted the broad legal framework that could accommodate same-sex marriages, urging the court to reconsider its stance in a transparent and public forum.

The Supreme Court last October also declined to grant adoption rights to the LGBTQ community. The court upheld Regulation 5(3) of the Indian CARA Regulations, asserting that this provision could not be declared void.

According to CARA Regulations, specifically Regulation 5(3), “No child shall be given in adoption to a couple unless they have at least two years of a stable marital relationship, except in cases of relative or step-parent adoption.” This regulation underscores the stringent criteria set for adoption, emphasizing the importance of a stable and legally recognized marriage, thereby excluding LGBTQ couples from adopting children under the current legal framework.

The regulation outlines the eligibility criteria for prospective adoptive parents. According to Regulation 2(b) and (c), a single female can adopt a child of any gender, whereas a single male is not eligible to adopt a girl child.

Although the 2023 judgment did not favor the LGBTQ community regarding marriage equality, the Supreme Court made a significant acknowledgment. It recognized being a member of the LGBTQ community is a natural phenomenon and not an “urban or elite” phenomenon, as previously suggested by the government.

Marriage equality in Thailand gives Indian activists hope; challenges remain

Negha Shahin, who in 2022 became the first trans actress to win a Kerala State Film Awards, told the Washington Blade that LGBTQ Indians continue to face systemic discrimination and legal challenges, particularly in the fight for marriage equality.

“We live in 2024 when humanity has made remarkable advancements in science and technology. We understand the complex theories behind black holes and have successfully sent rockets into space. Yet, it is deeply disappointing that we still fail to recognize and uphold the basic rights of the queer community,” said Shahin. “For years, activists and allies have been advocating for the recognition of same-sex marriages, striving for a society where love and commitment are acknowledged and respected regardless of gender or sexual orientation.”

She said the Supreme Court’s denial of marriage rights for same-sex couples is a major setback. Shahin added it underscores the gap between technological advancements and social progress.

“Denying this right to same-sex couples not only perpetuates inequality but also inflicts emotional and social harm on a significant segment of our population,” said Shahin. “We must increase the chances of achieving marriage equality by pushing for legislative changes.”

“Our lawmakers have a responsibility to create laws that reflect the values of equality and justice for all citizens,” she added. “Without ensuring the basic rights of gender and sexual minorities, we cannot truly claim that India is progressing. It is time for India to bridge this gap and ensure that the rights of the LGBTQIA community are fully recognized and protected. Only then can we truly say that we are growing as nation.”

Shahin discussed the recent passage of a marriage equality law in Thailand, which shares a maritime border with India. (Same-sex couples can also legally marry in Nepal, which borders India.)

She noted Thailand is a monarchy, whereas India is a democracy. Shahin told the Blade that one may have expected India to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples first, given the country’s democratic values and its emphasis on equality.

“Seeing a neighboring country like Thailand legalize same-sex marriage may create pressure on Indian lawmakers to address the issue more seriously,” she said. “It highlights the disparity in rights between countries and could push Indian politicians to consider similar legalization to avoid falling behind in terms of human rights.”

Souvik Saha, founder of People for Change, one of India’s premier LGBTQ rights groups, told the Blade that as an activist who works for LGBTQ rights in Jharkhand state, he sees recent developments regarding the Supreme Court’s review petition on same-sex marriage as a significant step forward.

“The recusal of a judge and the constitution of a new bench indicate a reevaluation of existing legal perspectives, potentially paving the way for progress towards marriage equality in India,” said Saha. “The global trend towards marriage equality, such as Thailand’s recent move, can certainly influence India’s judicial decisions and societal perceptions.”

“Thailand’s legalization of same-sex marriage in 2024 reflects a growing global acceptance and recognition of LGBT rights. This shift is noteworthy because it demonstrates that cultural attitudes and legal frameworks are evolving to embrace equality and human rights,” he added.

The Supreme Court in 2018 decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations in India.

Saha said there has been increasing momentum towards broader inclusion and equality since that landmark ruling. The U.N. Development Program’s 2020 report on LGBTQ rights in India he notes indicates this progress has been uneven.

The UNDP notes legal recognition and protection against discrimination are crucial steps towards achieving full equality. The involvement of civil society organizations and advocacy groups, such as those in Jharkhand, plays a crucial role in pushing for inclusive policies and legal reforms.

Ankush Kumar is a reporter who has covered many stories for Washington and Los Angeles Blades from Iran, India, and Singapore. He recently reported for the Daily Beast. He can be reached [email protected]. He is on Twitter at @mohitkopinion.

When schools in India’s Kerala state reopened on June 3 after a long summer break, students walked into classrooms with the usual excitement. This year, however, they were greeted with a surprising and groundbreaking change. The textbooks they received were unlike any they had seen before — filled with gender-neutral images and instructions.

The initiative, driven by the state’s commitment to fostering equality from a young age, aimed to break down traditional gender roles and promote inclusivity. Students found pictures of boys and girls engaging in various activities without gender-specific expectations.

One of the images showed the father grating coconut in the kitchen while his wife cooked food. Another picture showed the father cooking food for his daughter.

In an unprecedented move, some schools in Kerala have committed to gender neutrality beyond textbooks, introducing gender-neutral uniforms. This change marks a significant departure from the traditional Indian school uniform, where boys typically wear shirts and pants, and girls don skirts, often in different colors. Many schools in Kerala have introduced the same school uniform for all students including shirts and knee-length pants.

More than 12 schools in Kerala have shifted to gender-neutral dresses so far. While there are a total of 4,504 government-run schools in Kerala, the Kerala Child Rights Commission last year decided to remove the use of words like “sir” and “madam” for teachers and instead encouraged to use of universal terms like “teacher” on school premises, but the Department of General Education, a state government body that overseas education in schools, refrained from any changes.

The National Council of Education Research and Training, a government-autonomous body of India’s Education Ministry, in 2023 introduced a manual that directs schools to implement transgender-inclusive curricula, safe washrooms, and gender-neutral dress for students to prevent gender-based discrimination and violence.

The Mumbai-based Aditya Birla World Academy, a private international school, in 2022 adopted gender-neutral uniforms and language in its 138 branches across the country. The school replaced “ladies” and “gentlemen” and other gender-specific words with “dear guests” or “hello everyone.” The school sent an email to parents that told them how to reduce gender differentiation in uniforms so students of various genders and those who are gender non-conforming or questioning their gender can feel safe discovering and expressing themselves at the school.

The Aditya Birla World Academy has also established the Rainbow Club, an LGBTQ support group led by students and guided by teachers, to create an environment of activism in the classroom, shifted to allow students to choose the length of their hair as long as it is neatly tied up, along with other activities that include workshops with teachers and parents under the initiative of “move away from the cis heteronormative environment in the education world.”

While talking to the Washington Blade, Harish Iyer, an equal rights activist, said children should be allowed to dress the way they want. He also said the idea of uniforms in schools is that a student should feel included, regardless of what strata of society to which they belong.

“Adding gender-neutrality to uniforms would only extend the whole purpose of the uniforms,” said Iyer. “It should be appreciated by all as there is no question of any debate here. What should be debated is that some people are forced to wear what is not part of their gender identity.”

Iyer told the Blade there should not be any gender assigned to clothes. He said uniforms should be based on comfort and not based on gender.

Indrani Chakraborty, a mother of a trans child and an LGBTQ activist based in northeast India, told the Blade the Kerala government’s decision to implement gender-neutral uniforms is welcome. She said her organization, Annajoree, is also trying to sensitize people on the same issue in Assam state.

“We are promoting safe-spaces in schools in Assam so that kids can complete their basic education without any mental harassment at school,” said Chakraborty. “Kerala is doing great work, it’s a great initiative and everyone should come forward to support it. It should be everywhere in our country.”

She also told the Blade that schools not sensitized to LGBTQ issues creates a fear of bullying. Students, according to Chakraborty, in particular face bullying and they are not allowed to join classes in their preferred uniforms and do not have access to gender-neutral bathrooms. 

She has started an initiative called the “No More Holding Pee Initiative” in schools.

Ankush Kumar is a reporter who has covered many stories for Washington and Los Angeles Blades from Iran, India, and Singapore. He recently reported for the Daily Beast. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is on Twitter at @mohitkopinion.