Interesting Question Answered in Same-Sex Marriage Judgment

Is Queerness Un-Indian?

The LGBTQ community has often been perceived as a reflection of Western culture. Various court rulings have sought to challenge these mental biases. In the landmark judgment of NALSA in 2015, the court recognized individuals falling outside the binary genders, referring to them as the "Third gender." The Navtej Singh Johar case sheds light on the fact that 'transgender' is an umbrella term encompassing intersex individuals.

When examining the question of whether queerness is un-Indian, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the queer community has existed in Indian society for centuries, albeit under different names like hijras, kothis, aravanis, jogappas, thiru nambis, nupi maanbas, and nupi maanbis. They maintain a unique structure in comparison to Western countries, with relationships such as guru-chela, mother and daughter, sisters, and even husband and wife forming a part of the social structure for non-binary gender individuals in India.

The court identified that the term 'queerness' has its origins in the West but has been a part of India throughout its history. The court, in the Navjet Singh Johar v/s Union of India case, affirmed that queerness is natural and intrinsic.

Contrary to the portrayal in media that queerness, homosexuality, and transgender identity only exist among the urban elite, there are several reasons why preconceived notions persist. The urban elite have the resources and support to self-identify and express themselves without fear of judgment. 

The Supreme Court clarified that homosexuality is not limited to urban India; it is also practiced in rural societies. While rural communities may not use the same English lexicon, same-sex relationships are very much a part of rural India, as they are in urban areas.

To emphasize that queerness is neither urban nor elitist, the court pointed to various petitioners who hailed from small villages and towns. Some were born into ordinary families, grew up in agricultural fields, and worked in factories, just like any typical Indian. 

All the petitioners lived and loved like ordinary Indian citizens. 

In the case of Supriyo v/s Union of India, the Supreme Court recounted the tale of how, once upon a time, homosexuality did not need to be accepted because it was ordinary and very much a part of Indian culture. The role of the British India Company in tampering with the rights of homosexuals was also discussed.

In conclusion, the judgment of Supriyo v/s Union of India dispels any lingering doubts about the origins of queerness and homosexuality and firmly establishes that Indian homosexuals are as Indian as heterosexual individuals. A person's sexual preference does not affect their status as Indian citizens.