A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
LGBT rights in India | |
|---|---|
.svg) Area controlled by India shown in dark green; disputed regions shown in light green | |
| Status | Homosexuality legal since 2018 (Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India) |
| Gender identity | Transgender people have a constitutional right to change their legal gender and a third gender (non-binary) is recognised.[1][2] (National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India) |
| Military | Openly homosexual people are banned[3] |
| Discrimination protections | Explicit gender identity protections and indirect constitutional protections for sexual orientation (see below) |
| Family rights | |
| Recognition of relationships | Limited cohabitation rights |
| Adoption | Adoption by single LGBT people is recognized, but not by same-sex couples |
| Part of a series on |
| LGBT rights |
|---|
 |
| Lesbian ∙ Gay ∙ Bisexual ∙ Transgender |
 LGBT portal |
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in India have expanded in the 21st century, although Indian LGBT citizens still face legal and social challenges not experienced by non-LGBT people. Much of India's advancements on LGBT rights have primarily come from the judiciary and not the legislature. [4]
There are no legal restrictions against gay sex or gay expression. Same-sex couples have some equal cohabitation rights, colloquially known as live-in relationships.[5][6] However, India does not currently provide for common law marriages, same-sex marriage, civil unions, guardianship or issue partnership certificates.[7][8][9]
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 recognizes the right to self-perceived gender identity, and new identification documents confirming the change of gender can be issued by government agencies once a certificate is provided by a relevant medical official.[10] Transgender citizens have a constitutional right to register themselves under a third gender.[11]
Additionally, some states protect hijras, a traditional third gender population in South Asia through housing programmes, and offer welfare benefits, pension schemes, free operations in government hospitals as well as other programmes designed to assist them. There are approximately 480,000 transgender people in India as per Census 2011.[12][13][14]
Since the 2010s, LGBT people in India have increasingly gained tolerance and acceptance in society,[15] with a 2023 Pew Research Center poll finding that 53% of Indians supported the legalisation of same-sex marriage, while 43% were opposed.[16]
The ruling government of the BJP/NDA's position on recognition of same-sex relationships is to address the "human concerns" about same-sex couples within the context of Hinduism while opposing any form of civil unions. The Indian National Congress party manifesto promised to hold a discussion to enact same-sex civil unions if they gain control of the Lok Sabha with the 2024 Indian general election. Two government sources stated that the recognition of same-sex relationships would require backing from all religious groups in India.[17][18]
History
There were no legal restrictions on homosexuality or transsexuality for the general population prior to early modern period and colonialism, however certain dharmic moral codes forbade sexual misconduct (of both heterosexual and homosexual nature) among the upper class of persists and monks, and religious codes of foreign religions such as Christianity and Islam imposed homophobic rules on their populations.[19][20][21][22]
Hinduism
Hinduism describes a third gender that is equal to other genders and documentation of the third gender are found in ancient Hindu and Buddhist medical texts.[23] The term "third gender" is sometimes viewed as a specifically South Asian term, and this third gender is also found throughout South Asia and East Asia.[24][25]
There are certain characters in the Mahabharata who, according to some versions of the epic, change genders, such as Shikhandi, who is sometimes said to be born as a female but identifies as male and eventually marries a woman.[26] Bahuchara Mata is the goddess of fertility, worshipped by hijras as their patroness.[27]
The Nāradasmṛti and the Sushruta Samhita, two important Sanskrit texts relating to dharma and medicine, respectively, declare homosexuality to be unchangeable and forbid homosexuals from marrying a partner of the opposite sex. The Nāradasmṛti lists fourteen types of panda (men who are impotent with women); among these are the mukhebhaga (men who have oral sex with other men), the sevyaka (men who are sexually enjoyed by other men) and the irshyaka (the voyeur who watches other men engaging in sex). The Kama Sutra, a Sanskrit text on human sexual behavior, uses the term tritiya-prakriti to define men with homosexual desires and describes their practices in great detail. Likewise, the Kama Sutra describes lesbians (svairini, who engage in aggressive lovemaking with other women), bisexuals (referred to as kami or paksha), transgender and intersex people.[citation needed]
Hindu gurus in Ancient India often offered commentary on how society should be run, but these commentaries were often not implemented in a moral or legal sense,[28] and often referred to moral conduct for the upper class of monks and priests who were expected to refrain from sex rather than the lay people.[29] The Sushruta Samhita and the Charaka Samhita delve further into the issue of homosexuality, stating that homosexuals are conceived when the father's semen is scanty and transgender people are conceived when the father and mother reverse roles during intercourse (purushayita, "woman on top").[30] In the Manusmriti, there are proposals for various punishments for homosexual sex in certain cases (along with heterosexual sex too). A mature woman having sex with a maiden girl was punished by having her head shaved or two of her fingers cut off, and she was also made to ride on a donkey. In the case of homosexual male sex, the Manusmriti dictated that sexual union between two people (both homosexual and heterosexual) in a bullock cart as a source of ritual pollution. Scholars doubt that the Manusmitri was implemented prior to colonialism, after which it became the basis of British colonial law for Hindus (in opposition to the Sharia Law for Muslims).[31]
The Hindu Khajuraho temples, famous for their erotic sculptures, contain several depictions of homosexual activity. Historians have long argued that pre-colonial Indian society did not criminalise same-sex relationships, nor did it view such relations as immoral or sinful. Hinduism has traditionally portrayed homosexuality as natural and joyful, though some texts do contain injunctions against homosexuality namely among priests.[citation needed]
The Pali Canon of Buddhism (a legal code for conduct of the sangha (monks and nuns) described that any sexual relations, whether of homosexual or of heterosexual nature, is forbidden in the monastic code, and states that any acts of soft homosexual sex (such as masturbation and interfumeral sex) does not entail a punishment but must be confessed to the monastery.[citation needed] These codes apply to monks only and not to the general population.[citation needed] The Pali Canon was largely written in Sri Lanka but based on the words of Buddha in India.[32]
Mughal empire
The Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan imposed anti-homosexual law throughout the empire and introduced harsh discrimination against LGBTQ in much of Asia, including its derivatives such as Yuan China and the Mughal Empire.[33][34][35]
During the Mughal Empire, a number of the pre-existing Delhi Sultanate laws were combined into the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, mandating several types of punishments for homosexuality.[36] These could include 50 lashes for a slave, 100 for a free infidel, or death by stoning for a Muslim.[37][38][39][40]
British empire
Codification of criminalization of homosexual activity was enacted by of Section 377 by the British, which stood for more than 70 years after Indian independence.[41] The Goa Inquisition once prosecuted the capital crime of sodomy in Portuguese India,[42][43] but not lesbian activity,[44] whereas the British Raj criminalised anal sex and oral sex (for both heterosexuals and homosexuals) under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which entered into force in 1861, and made it an offence for a person to voluntarily have "carnal intercourse against the order of nature". Scholars have also argued that the original intention of Section 377 was to act as a means by which the British Raj could further police and control the body of the colonial subject. In colonial Victorian era morality, these subjects were seen as erotically perverse and in need of the imposition.[45][46]
In 1884, a court in north India, ruling on the prosecution of a hijra, commented that a physical examination of the accused revealed she "had the marks of a habitual catamite" and commended the police's desire to "check these disgusting practices".[47] In 1871, the British labeled the hijra population as a "criminal tribe".[48]
-
-
Two women using carrots as dildos, 20th century gouache painting.
Post independence
The Delhi High Court decision in Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi of 2009 found Section 377 and other legal prohibitions against private, adult, consensual, and non-commercial same-sex conduct to be in direct violation of fundamental rights provided by the Indian Constitution. Section 377 stated that: "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with , or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine," with the added explanation that: "Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section."[49]
According to a previous ruling by the Indian Supreme Court, decisions of a high court on the constitutionality of a law apply throughout India, and not just to the state over which the high court in question has jurisdiction.[50]
There have been incidents of harassment of LGBT groups by authorities under the law.[51]
On 23 February 2012, the Ministry of Home Affairs expressed its opposition to the decriminalisation of homosexual activity, stating that in India, homosexuality is seen as being immoral.[52] The Central Government reversed its stance on 28 February 2012, asserting that there was no legal error in decriminalising homosexual activity. The shift in stance resulted in two judges of the Supreme Court reprimanding the Central Government for frequently changing its approach to the issue.[53]
Since 2012, 2 July has been celebrated as the Indian Coming Out Day to mark the 2009 Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi judgement that decriminalized homosexual sexual activity.[54][55][56]
On 11 December 2013, the Supreme Court set aside the 2009 Delhi High Court order decriminalising consensual homosexual activity within its jurisdiction.[57][58][59][60][61]
Human Rights Watch expressed concerns that the Supreme Court ruling would render same-sex couples and individuals that had become open about their sexuality following the High Court's ruling vulnerable to police harassment and blackmail,[46][62] stating that "the Supreme Court's ruling is a disappointing setback to human dignity, and the basic rights to privacy and non-discrimination"[63] The Naz Foundation stated that it would file a petition for review of the court's decision.[64] Activist group Kavi's Humsafar Trust have reported that two-fifths of homosexuals in the country had faced blackmail after the 2013 ruling.[41]
On 28 January 2014, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the review petition filed by the Central Government, the Naz Foundation and several others against its 11 December verdict on Section 377.[65] The bench explained the ruling by claiming that: "While reading down Section 377, the High Court overlooked that a minuscule fraction of the country's population constitutes lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgender people, and in the more than 150 years past, less than 200 persons have been prosecuted for committing offence under Section 377, and this cannot be made a sound basis for declaring that Section ultra vires Articles 14, 15 and 21."[66]
On 18 December 2015, Shashi Tharoor, a member of the Indian National Congress party, introduced a bill for the repeal of Section 377, but it was rejected in the House by a vote of 71-24.[67]
On 2 February 2016, the Supreme Court decided to review the criminalisation of homosexual activity.[68] In August 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the right to individual privacy is an intrinsic and fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The Court also ruled that a person's sexual orientation is a privacy issue, giving hopes to LGBT activists that the Court would soon strike down Section 377.[69]
In January 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to refer the question of Section 377's validity to a large bench,[70] and heard several petitions on 1 May 2018.[71] In response to the court's request for its position on the petitions,[72] the Government announced that it would not oppose the petitions, and would leave the case "to the wisdom of the court".[73] A hearing began on 10 July 2018,[74][75] with a verdict expected before October 2018.[76] Activists view the case as the most significant and "greatest breakthrough for gay rights since the country's independence", and it could have far-reaching implications for other Commonwealth countries that still outlaw homosexuality.[73]
On 6 September 2018, the Supreme Court issued its verdict.[77] The Court unanimously ruled that Section 377 is unconstitutional as it infringed on the fundamental rights of autonomy, intimacy, and identity, thus legalising homosexuality in India.[78][79] The Court explicitly overturned its 2013 judgement.
Criminalising carnal intercourse is irrational, arbitrary and manifestly unconstitutional.
— Chief Justice Dipak Misra[80]
History owes an apology to these people and their families. Homosexuality is part of human sexuality. They have the right of dignity and free of discrimination. Consensual sexual acts of adults are allowed for LGBT community.
— Justice Indu Malhotra
It is difficult to right a wrong by history. But we can set the course for the future. This case involves much more than decriminalizing homosexuality. It is about people wanting to live with dignity.
— Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
Furthermore, it ruled that any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a violation of the Indian Constitution:[81]
Sexual orientation is one of the many biological phenomena which is natural and inherent in an individual and is controlled by neurological and biological factors. The science of sexuality has theorized that an individual exerts little or no control over who he/she gets attracted to. Any discrimination on the basis of one's sexual orientation would entail a violation of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court also directed the Government to take all measures to properly broadcast the fact that homosexuality is not a criminal offence, to create public awareness and eliminate the stigma members of the LGBT community face, and to give the police force periodic training to sensitise them about the issue.[82][83][84]
The judgement also included an inbuilt safeguard to ensure that it cannot be revoked again under the "Doctrine of Progressive Realisation of Rights".[85]
Legal experts have urged the Government to pass legislation reflecting the decision, and frame laws to allow same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples and inheritance rights.[86]
Non-consensual sex (rape) and bestiality remain criminal offences. Initially, it was unknown whether the Supreme Court ruling extended to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir, which was governed by its own criminal law, the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). Legal opinion was divided on whether the Supreme Court judgment applied to the state or not. Per a 1995 judgment of the state High Court, when an IPC (Indian Penal Code) provision is struck down on grounds of violating the Constitution, its corresponding provision in the Ranbir Penal Code too would be struck down.[87] On 31 October 2019, the state was split into the union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, which apply the IPC. The RPC was abolished.[88]
In September 2021, the Chennai-based Madras High Court, which has jurisdiction over Tamil Nadu, ruled that queerphobia was rampant in medical education and directed the medical institutions and police to revamp their services to support LGBTQ individuals.[89]
On 10 April 2022, The Madras High Court directed Tamil Nadu Government to conduct sensitization of school teachers on LGBT issues.[90] The court also recommended a glossary or style-sheet to be used by Media for writing about LGBT community. The court asked the Tamil Nadu Government to adopt the glossary developed by community members till a time it can come up with its own version.[91]
In the early weeks of January 2023, the leader of the highly influential Hindu group called RSS, often labelled as a far-right organization that provides grassroots support for the ruling BJP, backed LGBTQ rights and stated that LGBTQ rights were supported in the native Hindu culture and history. However, it stopped short of recognizing the right to civil registration of same-sex relationships.[92]
In April 2024, as per the direction of the Supreme Court in the Supriyo verdict, the Modi government established a six-person commission to evaluate and receive feedback on the needs of the LGBT community at the federal level.[93] Headed by the Cabinet Secretary, the commission comprises the Secretaries of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Women and Child Development, and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Recognition of same-sex relationships
India provides some legal recognition of homosexual partnerships as live-in relationships. It does not provide for legal marriages, common law marriages, guardianship, civil unions, or issue partnership certificates,[7][8] though same-sex couples can attain the rights and benefits as a live-in couple (analogous to cohabitation) as per Supreme Court of India landmark decision Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal in August 2022.[94][5] There are number of companies that provide services to homosexuals in live-in relationships such as financial services[95] and healthcare services.[96]
Hinduism traditionally believed that there is no role for the state in marriage and that it was a private/societal issue to be dealt with locally. Marriage was codified into the legal system through the Hindu Marriage Law by the British Raj, though this was not a perfect interpretation of the original marriages conducted before that time and was to deal with divorce proceedings, and the colonial laws only allowed for heterosexual marriages to be performed.[97] Despite the legal requirement to register a marriage with the government, the vast majority of Hindu marriages are not registered with government and are instead conducted through unwritten common law.[98][99][100]
Several same-sex couples have married in traditional Hindu ceremonies; however, these marriages were not able to be registered and couples do not attain all the same rights and benefits as heterosexual married couples.[101][102]
Buddhism considers marriage to be a secular issue or a social contract, and therefore not a religious matter.[103] There is no official marriage service and marriage customs are often adopted from local cultural traditions, for example with Andi Fian arguing that prohibitions against homosexual marriage in Confucianism may have influenced Chinese Buddhism.[104][105]
Since the 2010s, courts in several states, including Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Odisha, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, have ruled on an individual basis that cohabitation (also known as "live-in relationships") between same-sex couples is not unlawful and entitled to legal protection. This has often only entailed limited inheritance benefits or police protection from family.
The Supreme Court in 2022 provided limited equal rights to those in live-in relationships while also recognising homosexual live-in couples as being part of a familital unit.[106]
On 17 October 2023, the Supreme Court of India unanimously voted against the legalization of same-sex marriage, but reiterated the rights of LGBT citizens under the constitution and empowered parliament or state legislatures to enact their own laws to "meet challenges" faced by the LGBT community and regulate rights.[107][108]
The ruling government of the BJP/NDA's position on recognition of same-sex relationships is to address the "human concerns" about same-sex couples within the context of Hinduism by providing equal financial and legal rights. The sources stated that the recognition of same-sex marriage would require the backing from all religious groups.[18][17]
Case law
In 2011, a Haryana court granted legal recognition to a same-sex marriage involving two women.[109] After marrying, the couple began to receive threats from friends and relatives in their village. The couple eventually won family approval.[110]
Their lawyer said the court had served notice on 14 of Veena's relatives and villagers who had threatened them with "dire consequences". Haryana has been the centre of widespread protests by villagers who believe their village councils or khaps should be allowed to impose their own punishments on those who disobey their rulings or break local traditions – mainly honour killings of those who marry within their own gotra or sub-caste, regarded in the state as akin to incest. Deputy Commissioner of Police Dr. Abhe Singh told The Daily Telegraph: "The couple has been shifted to a safe house and we have provided adequate security to them on the court orders. The security is provided on the basis of threat perception and in this case the couple feared that their families might be against the relationship."[111]
There are currently several same-sex marriage petitions pending with the courts.[86] On 12 June 2020, the Uttarakhand High Court acknowledged that while same-sex marriage may not be legal, cohabitation and "live-in relationships" are protected by the law.[112] A ruling by the Supreme Court of India in 2022 widened the definition of families to live-in couples inclusive of LGBT, thereby providing LGBT couples rights and benefits equal to that of married couples.[113] The Madras High Court in 2023 suggested to the Tamil Nadu government to consider adopting a "deed of familial association" for recognizing same-sex relationships.[114]
Supriyo v. Union of India (2020-present)
On 25 November 2022, the Supreme Court of India agreed to hear the case that could legalize same-sex marriage as the nine petitions pending before the Kerala and Delhi High Courts are transferred to the Supreme Court for a uniform ruling.[115] The matter is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court on 13 March 2023.[116][117]
On 19 December 2022, Sushil Modi, a prominent BJP lawmaker, told Parliament that "India is the country of 1.4 billion people and two judges cannot just sit in a room and decide on such a socially significant subject. Instead, there should be a debate in Parliament as well as the society at large" he added.[118][119]
On 14 March 2023, during the press conference at the end of Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha, RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale backed the BJP-led Union Government's opposition to the extension of the right to marry for same-sex couples. He said marriage is an institution for the benefit of the family and society, not for physical and sexual enjoyment.[120]
On 24 March 2023, a group of 21 retired judges of various High Courts have issued an open letter stating that legalisation of same-sex marriage will change the entire gamut of all personal laws from marriage to adoption and succession. The law-making power is vested with the Parliament and not with the judiciary, especially in matters exclusively within social and political domain, the judges have mentioned. The letter also noted, "Instead of having wide-range discussions amongst stakeholders, such a hasty judicial intervention is unfortunate, and totally unwarranted. The court should not interfere in sensitive issues like same-sex marriage. The subject is related to society and the opinion of society on these matters is important. Parliament is paramount in making laws and the MPs elected to Parliament represent the people of the country." retired Justice of High Court of Delhi added.[121][122][123]
On 1 April 2023, Mahmood Asad Madani representing the Islamic organisation Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind sought to intervene as an opponent to legalizing same-sex marriage in India. Several other Islamic organisations including Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, and Telangana Markazi Shia Ulema Council also voiced their opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage.[124][125][126]
Oral arguments began on 18 April 2023.[127] During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who's representing the government noted that five individuals should not decide for the entire nation and issues related to human relationships, such as marriage should be addressed by parliament. The Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachuda responded: "There is no absolute concept of a man or a woman at all. You can't tell us what to do. I won't allow this in my court".[128][129][130][131]
On 20 April 2023, a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud hinted at their intention to legalize same-sex marriage, despite objections by the Indian government and religious groups.[132][133]
On 21 April 2023, Bhupender Yadav, an influential Minister and the National General Secretary of the ruling BJP stated that "the issue of marriage concerns society and society's opinion on this issue cannot be excluded. The voice of society is best reflected in Parliament".[134][135]
Kanav Sahgal who works for the Vidhi Center for Legal Policy noted that "homosexuality is not perceived very well in large parts of India. No matter what is decided by the Supreme Court, India's majority does not support the legalization of same-sex marriage".[136]
The State Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have opposed the legal recognition of same-sex marriages and not a single Indian State Government has expressed support for same-sex marriage.[137]
Legislation
In October 2017, a group of citizens proposed a draft of a new Uniform Civil Code that would legalise same-sex marriage to the Law Commission of India.[138]
It defines marriage as "the legal union as prescribed under this Act of a man with a woman, a man with another man, a woman with another woman a transgender with another transgender or a transgender with a man or a woman. All married couples in partnership entitled to adopt a child. Sexual orientation of the married couple or the partners not to be a bar to their right to adoption. Non-heterosexual couples will be equally entitled to adopt a child".[139]
On 1 April 2022, MP Supriya Sule introduced a private member's bill to legalize same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.[140]
Discrimination protections
Article 15 of the Constitution of India states that:[141]
15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
- (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them
- (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to
- (a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
- (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public
In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that the Indian Constitution bans discrimination based on sexual orientation via the category of "sex". Similarly in the case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is constitutionally prohibited.[142]
Gender identity, in our view, is an integral part of sex and no citizen can be discriminated on the ground of gender identity, including those who identify as third gender. We, therefore, conclude that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity includes any discrimination, exclusion, restriction or preference, which has the effect of nullifying or transposing equality by the law or the equal protection of laws guaranteed under our Constitution. (p. 73)
— Supreme Court Judge K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan
Sex as it occurs in Article 15, is not merely restricted to the biological attributes of an individual, but also includes their "sexual identity and character".
— Supreme Court of India
Despite these constitutional interpretations, no legislative law has been enacted to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment since Article 15 only extended to discrimination from the state or government bodies.[141] However, on 4 February 2021, the Allahabad High Court ruled that firing and discriminating against a person in employment on the basis of sexual orientation is a violation of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India ruling of the Supreme Court, hence extending the anti-discriminatory provisions to employment everywhere.[143][144] In case of physical attacks against LGBT people, Section 307 (Attempt to murder) or Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code is used against the perpetrator. In case of hate speech, Section 153 A (Hate Speech Law) of the code has been previously used.[145][146] The Allahabad High Court in a landmark decision in Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh stated that a Constitutional Court has a duty to monitor and observe the constitutional morality as well as the rights of the citizens which are under threat only on account of the sexual orientation. In August, 2018, the National Human Rights Commission of India set up the LGBTI core group and appointed openly gay politician Harish Iyer in its 15 members committee in a bid to enforce human rights related legislations pertaining to LGBTQ people and counter discrimination.[147]
Adopted in 2019, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 bans discrimination against transgender people in educational establishment and services, employment, healthcare services, access to the "use of any goods, accommodation, service, facility, benefit, privilege or opportunity dedicated to the use of the general public or customarily available to the public", the right to movement, the right to "reside, purchase, rent or otherwise occupy any property", the opportunity to stand for or hold public or private office, and in government or private establishments.[148]
There have been reservations among some in the transgender community, both regarding the difficulty of obtaining a certificate, and because of lack of awareness and lack of sensitivity to the issue among local public officials.[149] LGBTQ protests against the bill have occurred, with claims that the bill hurts the transgender community instead of helping it. Protesters noted the provision for certification, but criticized the fact that this would require people to register with the government in order to be recognized as transgender. They also criticized the inequality inherent in the vast differences in punishment for the same crime, such as sexual abuse, committed against violating a transgender or cisgender individual.[150]
LGBT activists are encouraging people who have faced discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity in other non-state areas to mount challenges in court, seeking to test the jurisprudence set by the two rulings.[86]
Discrimination and bullying in higher education
Discrimination, bullying and ragging targeted at a student on the ground of their sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited under the UGC Regulation on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions (Third Amendment), 2016.[151]
Military service
LGBT people are banned from openly serving in the Indian Armed Forces.[152] In late December 2018, Member of Parliament Jagdambika Pal (BJP) introduced a bill to the Indian Parliament to amend the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950 that would allow LGBT people to serve in the Armed Forces.[153] The bill was lapsed in the Lok Sabha.
Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Transgender_rights_in_IndiaText je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.
Antropológia
Aplikované vedy
Bibliometria
Dejiny vedy
Encyklopédie
Filozofia vedy
Forenzné vedy
Humanitné vedy
Knižničná veda
Kryogenika
Kryptológia
Kulturológia
Literárna veda
Medzidisciplinárne oblasti
Metódy kvantitatívnej analýzy
Metavedy
Metodika
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative
Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších
podmienok.
Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky
použitia.
www.astronomia.sk | www.biologia.sk | www.botanika.sk | www.dejiny.sk | www.economy.sk | www.elektrotechnika.sk | www.estetika.sk | www.farmakologia.sk | www.filozofia.sk | Fyzika | www.futurologia.sk | www.genetika.sk | www.chemia.sk | www.lingvistika.sk | www.politologia.sk | www.psychologia.sk | www.sexuologia.sk | www.sociologia.sk | www.veda.sk I www.zoologia.sk