On Friday, the Madras High Court urged the State government to establish a procedure for registering a 'Deed of Familial Association,' endorsing same-sex relationships and elevating the status of individuals in such relationships within society.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh emphasized that such a provision could safeguard the rights of LGBTQIA+ community members, ensuring they can live without disturbance or harassment.
Referring to the Supreme Court's recognition of the right to choose and live in a relationship, as well as protection from harassment in the case of Supriya & Anr. v Union of India, Justice Venkatesh supported the petitioner's proposal. He stated that the 'Deed of Familial Association' could provide respect and status to such relationships, enhancing the societal standing of those involved.
Consequently, Justice Venkatesh directed the Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, already working on a policy for the LGBTQIA+ community, to consider incorporating a system for registering deeds of familial association. The court order emphasized that this suggestion should be taken into account during the finalization of the policy for the LGBTQIA+ community.
This order arose from an intervening application in a case initiated by a lesbian couple seeking protection from their relatives. The court, throughout the proceedings, issued various directives aimed at promoting the welfare of LGBTQIA+ individuals.
The intervenor sought directions for authorities to issue orders recognizing deeds of familial association. The purpose of this deed, as explained by the petitioner, is to grant two individuals the right to live in a relationship and ensure their protection while in that relationship.
The court acknowledged the daily harassment faced by individuals in the LGBTQIA+ community and considered the deed as a contractual means of assistance when questions arise about their safety.
The court endorsed the petitioner's proposal, specifying that the deed's scope should be limited to addressing harassment, violence, ill-treatment by society or families, and discrimination affecting employment, housing, and assimilation in society.
In conclusion, the court found the petitioner's proposal convincing and directed authorities to incorporate it into the policy for the LGBTQIA+ community.
